Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48509 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Shanti Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amrit Shanker Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Amrit Shanker Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Smt. Shanti Devi seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2014 under Sections 498A, 304B, 34 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Khergarh, District Firozabad during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant namely Dablu was solemnized with Vinesh on 30.11.2011. After the expiry of a period of two years and one month from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 31.12.2013 in the house of the applicant, in which daughter-in-law of the applicant sustained burn injuries. The victim was admitted to the hospital namely, S.N.M Hospital, Firozabad on 31.12.2013, where she was undergoing treatment. In this interregnum, the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded on 31.12.2013 in which the victim has not implicated any person for the occurrence. Ultimately, the victim succumbed to her burn injuries on 19.1.2014. However, neither the inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted nor the post mortem of the body of the deceased was held. The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 21.1.2014 i.e. after 21 days of the occurrence by the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 011 of 2014 under Sections 498A, 304B, 34 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Khergarh, District Firozabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R., six persons namely, Dablu (husband), Komal Singh (father-in-law), Shanti Devi (mother-in-law), Nawab Singh, Chandrapal, Sundara (Jeth) of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, submitted a final report dated 28.11.2014. Upon submission of the final report, a protest petition was filed on 2.9.2016 by the first informant, which is after the expiry of period of two years and seven months. There is nothing on the record to indicate the knowledge of the first informant about the protest petition. The protest petition came to allowed vide order dated 21.9.2016, photocopy of which is on the record at page 23 of the paper book. From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it is apparent that the concerned Magistrate took cognizance under section 190 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. and accordingly directed that the case shall proceed as a State case. Thereafter the Court concerned summoned the named accused under the charging sections vide summoning order dated 21.9.2016. All the named accused surrendered before the Court below on 4.9.2018 i.e. approximately after two years from the date of passing of the summoning order. There is nothing in the affidavit accompanying the bail application regarding the aforesaid conduct of the applicant and the other named accused.
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 31.8.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to her credit except the present one. The dying declaration of the deceased, which was recorded on 31.12.2013 which is on the record at page 11 of the paper book, is also part of the case diary, clearly indicates that the death of the deceased was on account of accidental fire and not on account of any deliberate act of the present applicant. It is then submitted that the police upon completion of the statutory investigation could not get any material against the applicant. Consequently, final report was submitted. The present proceedings are continuing against the applicant on protest petition filed by the first informant against the final report. It is thus submitted that up to this stage, there is no material on the record to implicate the present applicant for the alleged offence. The co-accused Sundara alias Samundra Singh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 5.12.2018. Similarly two other co-accused namely Nawab Singh and Chandrapal Singh have been enlarged on bail vide order dated 13.12.2018. The case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of the co-accused Sundara alias Smaundra Singh, Nawab Singh and Chandrapal Singh. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that the the present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the deceased was a young lady aged about 20 years and she had died in unnatural circumstance just after two years and one month from the date of her marriage. However, learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual and legal 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. Shanti 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 THEY 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 THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(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 FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, 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 THEM 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 :- 18.12.2018 Arshad