Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49331 of 2018 Applicant :- Yasoda Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Mohan Tiwari,Rahul Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Satish Mohan Tiwari and Mr. Rahul Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant Yasoda Devi seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 523 of 2018, under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hathras Gate, District Hathras during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant namely Ravi was solemnized with Usha on 17.2.2018 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. However, even before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 6.6.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant committed suicide by hanging herself. The information regarding the aforesaid incident which occurred on 6.6.2018 was given on 6.6.2018 itself to the police not by the applicant or any of his family members, but by the sister of the deceased. Accordingly, the inquest of the deceased was held on 6.6.2018. In the opinion of the panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterized as suicidal. F.I.R. in respect of the incident was lodged on 6.6.2018, by the first informant Smt. Sunita, sister of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 523 of 2018, under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Hathras Gate, District Hathras. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 6.6.2018. The doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. The investigation of the aforesaid case crime is still pending.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The deceased was a short tempered lady and on account of sheer frustration, she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. Except for the ligature mark, no other external ante mortem injury was found by the doctor on the body of the deceased. The son of the applicant, who is the husband of the deceased, is already languishing in jail. General and vague allegations have been made in the F.I.R. regarding the demand of dowry. The applicant is an old woman aged about 50 years having no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in jail since 29.11.2018. The co-accused Amar Singh, who is the father-in-law of the deceased has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 25.10.2018. The case of the applicant is similar and identical to that of the co- accused Amar Singh. As such the present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since the death has occurred within a period of 7 years from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, therefore, the presumption is available to the prosecution and the same casts a heavy burden upon the applicant to explain the same. However, the applicant has failed to discharge the said burden. Learned A.G.A., however, could not dispute the other legal and factual submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State, upon perusal of the evidence on the record and the complicity of the accused, and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant-Yasoda 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.
Order Date :- 21.12.2018 Ravi Kant