Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2630 of 2019 Applicant :- Savitri Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Savitri Devi seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0211 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.- Madihan, District-Mirzapur during the pendency of the trial.
Perused the record.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant, namely, Umesh Shukla was solemnized with Sonam on 28.02.2016 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. From the aforesaid wedlock a male child was born, who is said to be aged about one year. However, after the expiry of a period of two years and five months from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 19.08.2018 in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant, namely, Sonam died as she committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. The inquest of the body of the deceased was performed on 19.08.2018 on the information given by the son of the applicant, i.e., the husband of the deceased, namely, Umesh Chandra Shukla. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterised as suicidal. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 20.08.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that no definite opinion could be given regarding cause of death of the deceased. As such, the viscera of the deceased was preserved. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged two days after the date of occurrence i.e. on 20.08.2018 by the brother of the deceased, namely, Akash Mishra, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 0211 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.-Madihan, District-Mirzapur.
In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons, namely, Umesh Chandra- husband, Brijesh Kumar-Devar, Savitri Devi-mother-in-law (the present applicant herein) and Aditya Prasad-father-in-law of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The investigating pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R. in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. is still said to be pending.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and is innocent. The applicant is in Jail since 4th October, 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 has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by consuming Aluminium Phosphide as is evident from the viscera report of the deceased dated 26.11.2018 submitted by the Chief Chemical Analyst. The applicant is residing separately along with her husband, namely, Aditya Prasad Shukla and in support thereof, reliance is placed upon the certificate of the Pradhan, copy of which is on record at page 12 of Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40753 of 2018 (Aditya Prasad Shukla Versus State of U.P.). The husband of the deceased is already languishing in jail. No statement of the deceased was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor there is any dying declaration of the deceased. Upto this stage, there is no such evidence on record on the basis of which it can be said that the present applicant has even abetted in the commission of alleged crime. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that the present applicant being the mother-in-law of the deceased is liable to be enlarged on bail. It is lastly submitted that the co-accused, namely, Aditya Prasad Shukla,father-in-law of the deceased has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27th November, 2018. The case of the present applicant, who is mother- in-law of the deceased is similar and identical to that of the co- accused Adiya Prasad Shukla. It is, thus, urged that the present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual and legal submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon consideration of the evidence on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed.
Let the applicant-Savitri 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 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, 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 him 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 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 :- 22.1.2019 Sushil/-