Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2518 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt. Rampyari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. C.P. Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application for bail has been filed by the applicant- Smt. Rampyari for seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 437 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304- B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kamalganj, District-Farrukhabad during the pendency of the trial.
3. It transpires from the record that the marriage of the son of the applicant namely Indal Singh was solemnized with Sudha Devi in the year 2015. However, just after the expiry of a period of little more than two years from the date of the marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 28.07.2017, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on the next day i.e. on 29.07.2017 on the information given by Indal, the husband of the deceased. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterized as suicidal. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 29.07.2017 by Rajesh Verma, the father of the deceased and was registered Case Crime No. 437 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kamalganj, District-Farrukhabad.
4. In the aforesaid F.I.R., eight persons, namely, Indal (the husband), Balveer (the jeth), Ranveer, (the jeth), Satyaveer, (the jeth), Ram Pyari, (the mother-in-law), wife of the jeth Balveer, wife of the jeth Ranveer, i.e. (the jethani) and the wife of the jeth Satyaveer i.e. (the jethani) of deceased were nominated as the named accused. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on the next day i.e. on 29.07.2017. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. Apart from the ligature mark, two external ante mortem injuries were also found on the body of the deceased, but they were not found to be fatal. 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 dated 24.10.2017 against two of the named accused i.e. the husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased i.e. the applicant herein above.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased, but she is innocent. The applicant is in Jail since 10.07.2018. The applicant is an old woman aged about 83 years. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to her credit except the present one. It is then submitted that the deceased was a short tempered lady and has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. The absence of any fatal external ante-mortem injury on the body of the deceased clearly denotes the bona fide of the present applicant. It is then submitted that looking at the age of the present applicant, it cannot be presumed that the applicant shall abet in the commission of the alleged crime nor the applicant can be said to be the beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry as alleged in the F.I.R. Therefore, it is urged that the allegations made in the F.I.R. regarding the demand of dowry and the commission of cruelty upon the deceased for non fulfilment of dowry are general and omnibus allegations and are not specifically pointed against the present applicant. There is no statement of the deceased recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. nor there is any dying declaration of the deceased. The husband of the deceased is already languishing in jail. As such, the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
6. Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute the factual submissions urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
7. 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.
8. Let the applicant-Smt. Rampyari 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 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under section 229- A I.P.C..
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure 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 her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(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 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.
9. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on 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.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 HSM