Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27391 of 2018 Applicant :- Vimla Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Dubey,Neeraj Kumar Chaurasiya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 24 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 304B, 328, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Barra, District Kanur Nagar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the husband Deepak got married with the deceased on 27.05.2012. It is contended by the counsel that the applicant is mother in law of the deceased and deceased has suffered from high viral fever and accordingly she was admitted in the hospital GSVM, Medical College (Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur). The bed head tickets is annexed as Annexure-1 she was suffering from high viral fever along with vomiting and altered sensoreim and unfortunately she expired on 04.11.2013 at 3.15 a.m.. The doctor has detected that the cause of death is cerebral malaria? and viral encephalitis for which she remained in the hospital for two days under the treatment of expert doctors but doctors could not save her life. Though after much delay though 156(3) Cr.P.C. application, the FIR was registered on 19.01.2014 levelling a tailored story of dowry harassment. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that after demise this information was given by the in-laws to their counter part and all of them have assembled and signed over panchayatnama and thereafter as per the prevailing practice in the society this 156(3) Cr.P.C. application was filed tailoring the story of dowry demand and harassment after considerable delay of 75 days. It is apparent that when the father is participated in the inquest there is no proper justification coming forward whey there is delay of 75 days in lodging the 156(3) Cr.P.C. application by tailoring a story of dowry harassment and roping entire family members of Deepak in this offence. Though learned AGA has pointed out that viscera was preserved and the Aluminium phosphate was recovered. From the viscera aforementioned question was remained unanswered. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that she is a lady suffered from paralysis and she was bailed out by the Investigating Officer himself on personal bond. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 06.06.2018 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.
Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping in view that the father in law of the deceased was enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 25877 of 2018 vide order dated 08.11.2017, I find it to be a fit case for bail.
In view of the above, let the applicant- Vimla Devi be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 24 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 304B, 328, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Barra, District Kanur Nagar with the following conditions:-
(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 :- 31.7.2018 Abhishek Sri.