Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45039 of 2018 Applicant :- Vidyawati Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Vidyawati Devi, seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 122 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Shatwar, District Ballia during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant namely Guddu Nut was solemnized with Gudiya on 11.5.2018 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. After the expiry of a period of two months from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, the daughter-in-law of the applicant died on 16.7.2018 on account of a head injury. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 17.1.2018 not on the information of the applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by the uncle of the deceased. No definite opinion was given by the Panch witnesses regarding the nature of the death of the deceased.
The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 19.7.2018, which was registered as Case Crime No. 122 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Shatwar, District Ballia. In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons namely, Guddu Nut (husband), Virendra Nut (devar), Manan Nut (father-in-law) and Vidyavati were nominated as the accused persons. Post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 18.7.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was anti mortem head injury. Only one external ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased, which was contusion 8cm x 6cm on the right temporal region of head. On desection below the scalp hemotoma was found to be present. The investigation of the aforesaid case crime number is still continuing.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The applicant is middle aged woman aged about 46 years, having no criminal antecedents to her credit except the present one. There is no evidence on the record up to this stage to show that the applicant has abetted in the commission of crime. General and omnibus allegations have been made in the FIR regarding the demand of dowry. The husband of the deceased is already languishing in jail. On the aforesaid factual premise it is urged that the bail application of the applicant is liable to be allowed.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since the occurrence has taken place after expiry of two months from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant therefore, the burden is upon the applicant to explain the circumstances in which the deceased died, which the applicant has failed to discharge. It is thus urged that no case for grant of bail is made out and the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
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 but without making any comment on the merits of the case, I find that applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly the bail application of the applicant is allowed.
Let the applicant Vidyawati 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/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 :- 27.11.2018 Ravi Kant