1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The applicant, who is mother-in-law of the deceased, has prayed for bail in case crime No.196 of 2021, under Sections- 498A, 304 B of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Purakalandar, District Ayodhya.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has contended that according to the first information report, lodged by father of the deceased, it has been stated that his daughter died while she was hanging clothes on the line which was electrified. It has been submitted that no evidence has been collected by the investigating agency or has come up during investigation in any statement which could implicate the applicant. Even the wire which is said to be used in the commission of the alleged offence has not been recovered from which it could be said that the applicant was responsible for electrifying the said wire from which the deceased came in contact with and got injured and subsequently succumbed to the injures. It is further submitted that general allegations against the applicant have been leveled in the first information report and in the statements which have come up during the investigation.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 and has submitted that these facts have also been taken cognizance by the Apex Court whereby the Court stated that there are large number of false and frivolous cases lodged against the entire family members of the husband and submitted that there are general allegations against the applicant and therefore giving benefit of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) the applicant is liable to be released on bail. It is further submitted that the applicant is also entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C..
5. Learned AGA has received instructions and opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the facts as argued by the counsel for the applicant.
6. Considering the fact that the applicant is mother-in-law and there is no specific allegation against the applicant to implicate her in the offence coupled with the fact that there is no evidence on record that the applicant had any role in electrifying the wire line to which the deceased came in contact with and without adverting anything on the merits of the case and that the applicant is in judicial custody since 26.7.2021 coupled with the fact that she is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. and also the verdict of Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and also looking to the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Let the applicant, Smt. Kusum Pathak, involved case crime No.196 of 2021, under Sections- 498A, 304 B of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Purakalandar, District Ayodhya be released on bail on her 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 would not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC. 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.
8. It is provided that none of the observations made above shall be considered by the trial court and the trial shall proceed on its own merits.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021 (Alok Mathur, J.) RKM.