Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45837 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Ram Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vishnu Kant Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Vishnu Kant Tiwari, the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
Perused the record.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant Smt. Ram Devi for seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0147 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kadaura, District Jalaun during the pendency of the trial.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of the son of the applicant, namely, Vinod was solemnized with Priya @ Maina on 12th May, 2018 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. However, just after the expiry of a period of almost one month from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 11th June, 2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant sustained burn injuries and died. The inquest of the deceased was performed on 11th June, 2018 not on the information given by the present applicant nor any of her family members but on the information given by the father of the deceased, namely, Shree Ram. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, no definite opinion could be given regarding the nature of death of the deceased. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 12th June, 2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased is Shock and Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem burn injury. A first information report dated 13th June, 2018 was lodged by the father of the deceased, namely, Shree Ram, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0147 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kadaura, District Jalaun. In the aforesaid first information report, four persons, namely, Vinod-husband, Ram Narayan-father-in-law, Smt. Ram Devi-mother-in-law (applicant herein) and Lal Singh- Devar of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. During the interregnum, the husband of the deceased i.e. the son of the applicant Vinod committed suicide and he died on 30th June, 2018. This fact has also been noted in the bail rejection order passed by the court below and the same has not been disputed by the learned A.G.A. The Police, upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C., has submitted a charge-sheet 15th October, 2018 against two of the named accused, namely, Ram Narayan-father-in-law and Smt. Ram Devi-mother-in-law (applicant herein) only. Lal Singh-Devar of the deceased was excluded. What has happened subsequent to the submission of the aforesaid charge-sheet dated 15th October, 2018 has neither been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the present bail application nor the same has been disclosed by the learned counsel for the applicant at the time of hearing of the present application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Though the applicant is a charge-sheeted accused but prima facie the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. The applicant is in jail since 19th July, 2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to her credit except the present one. Referring to the post-mortem of the deceased and the details of the ante-mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that prima facie the medical evidence goes to suggest that the death of the deceased was suicidal and not homicidal. It is, thus, contended that on account of the suicide committed by the daughter-in-law of the deceased, the son of the applicant has also committed suicide on 30th June, 2018. Therefore, the applicant has not only lost her daughter- in-law but also her son. In light of the facts as noted herein above, it is, thus, urged that since the applicant is an old lady aged about 58 years, she may be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual and legal submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Smt. Ram Devi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 30.11.2018 Sushil/-