Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42260 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt Rihana Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., ,Pankaj Bharti,Rajesh Shukla
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Onkar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the complainant along with Mr.
M.A. Mishra holding brief of Mr. Rajesh Shukla, Advocate who has also put in appearance on behalf of the complainant.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today, is taken on record.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Smt. Rihana, seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 706 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar, during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it transpires that the marriage of the son of the applicant namely Kamil was solemnized with Ayesha on 5.11.2017 in accordance with Muslim Rites and Customs. One fact may also be noted that on the same day the sister of the deceased namely Shama was married to the second son of the applicant namely Aadil. As such, two real sisters were married to real brothers and were residing in the same house-hold. After the expiry of a period of eight months from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant namely Kamil, an unfortunate incident occurred on 3.8.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 3.8.2018 not on the information given by the present applicant or any of her family members but on the information given by Lliyas, the father of the deceased. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was said to be homicidal. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 3.8.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. Except for the ligature mark no other external ante mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased.
The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on the same day i.e. 3.8.2018 by Lliyas, the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0706 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons namely, Kamil (husband), Aadil (Jeth), Rihana (mother-in-law) and Sajid (father-in-law) of the deceased were nominated as the accused. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter 12 Cr.P.C has submitted a charge- sheet dated 4.9.2018 only against the husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased (that is the applicant herein). What has happened subsequent to the submission of the charge-sheet dated 4.9.2018 has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application, nor the same could be disclosed by either of the counsel at the time of hearing of the present bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother- in-law of the deceased but she is innocent. The applicant is in jail since 5.8.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to her credit except the present one. It is next contended that the deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. Except for the ligature mark no external ante mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. General and omnibus allegations have been made in the FIR regarding the demand of dowry. There is no statement of the deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor there is dying declaration of the deceased. The husband is already languishing in jail. It is thus urged that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail. However, they could not dispute the factual submissions raised 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 Smt Rihana, 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 :- 29.11.2018 Ravi Kant