Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Renu vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|20 December, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48736 of 2018 Applicant :- Renu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Tawvab Ahmed Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Renu, seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 195 of 2018, under Sections 306, 328, 404 I.P.C., P.S. Kanth, District Moradabad during the pendency of the trial.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Antaram on 14.12.2011. After the expiry of a period of six years and six months from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 3.7.2018, in which the husband of the applicant namely Antaram consumed some poisonous substance. Further, it may be noted that from the wedlock of the applicant and the deceased a daughter Basu was born who is said to be aged about 2 1/2 years on date. As such, she is minor. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 3.7.2018 on the information given by the father of the deceased. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was said to be suicidal. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 4.7.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death of the deceased cannot be ascertained. Accordingly, the viscera of the deceased was preserved. The doctor further noted that there were no ante- mortem injuries on the body of the deceased.
The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 25.7.2018 by Chandre, father of the deceased and was registered as Case Crime No. 195 of 2018, under Sections 306, 328, 404 I.P.C., P.S. Kanth, District Moradabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons namely, Charan Singh father, Vinod Devi mother, Amit brother of the applicant and the applicant herein above namely Renu, were nominated as the accused persons. The investigation pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R. is said to be still continuing.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the wife of the deceased, but she is innocent. The applicant is in jail along with her minor daughter since 12.11.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to her credit except the present one. The applicant is a young lady having a daughter namely Basu, who is aged about 2 1/2 years on date. The police on the basis of material collected during the the pendency of investigation has converted the case under section 306 IPC and surrender of the applicant has also been effected under section 306 IPC and bail application of the applicant has also been rejected by the Court below under section 306 IPC. It is then urged that the proof of the charge under section 306 I.P.C. is subject to trial evidence. However, upto this stage, there is no evidence on record on the basis of which it can be said that the present applicant has aided, conspired or instigated in the commission of the alleged crime. In short, the submission is that there is no abetement on the part of the present applicant in the commission of the alleged crime. It is lastly urged that looking at the precarious family condition of the applicant, when particularly there is a minor daughter aged about 2 1/2 years, the applicant will not abet in the commission of the alleged crime involving her own husband. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant and without making any comment on the merits of the case, I find that applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant-Renu, 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.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 HSM
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Renu vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
20 December, 2018
Judges
  • Rajeev Misra
Advocates
  • Tawvab Ahmed Khan