Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49858 of 2017 Applicant :- Nandrani Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jadu Nandan Yadav,Arimardan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail filed on behalf of Nandrani Devi in Case Crime No.665 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Tirva, District Kannauj.
The applicant is the mother-in-law and is in jail since 06.11.2017.
Heard Sri Pranvesh, Advocate holding brief of Sri J.N. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Saqib Meezan, learned AGA appearing for the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that she is the mother-in-law; that there are general allegations against the entire family comprising six of the in-laws with no specific role being assigned to the mother-in-law; that the deceased committed suicide dousing herself in kerosene on account of a quarrel with her husband as she was a short tempered lady and it was a case of an unabetted suicide; that the husband, Umesh Kumar tried to save her and rushed her to Hallet Hospital, Kanpur Nagar as asserted in paragraph 10 of the affidavit; that there is no evidence of dowry or cruelty in connection with demand for dowry preceding the occurrence so as to attract the provisions of Section 304B I.P.C; that on an identical role the father-in-law has been admitted to bail vide order dated 07.02.2018, passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.50216 of 2017 and on that ground the applicant claims parity; and, that the applicant being a 65 years old woman is entitled to bail.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has taken the Court through the contents of the dying declaration where the deceased has said that all the family members were involved in setting her afire including the applicant; and, that looking to the contents of the dying declaration the applicant who has also been named by the deceased is not entitled to bail. However, he does not dispute the factum of parity.
Learned counsel for the applicant at this stage has come up with the submission that the dying declaration casts general blame on the entire family and the applicant being an old woman of 65 years cannot be expected to have actively participated in a violent crime of the present nature.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the evidence appearing in the case, the general terms in which the dying declaration has been made, in particular, the age of the applicant which is said to be 65 years as also the case of parity but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. The other accused would not be entitled to seek parity with the applicant.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant Nandrani Devi involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, benefit of this order will not be available to other accused who are named in the dying declaration.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 Shahroz