Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28346 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Zaibunisha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Belal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Ehtesham Akhtar, Advocate on behalf of the first informant today in the Court is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.169 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station-Khoda, District-Ghaziabad is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the mother-in- law of the deceased. The FIR was registered by the first informant against the applicant and two other family members on 11.03.2018. As per FIR, the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the son of the applicant in the year 2017. The allegation is that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the members of her matrimonial house in connection with the demand of additional dowry. General and generic role has been attributed to all the accused persons including the husband of the deceased, who is languishing in jail. The next contention is that there is no dying declaration against the applicant nor there is any eye witness account of the alleged incident. As per the post mortem report, the cause of death of the deceased is Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. It is further submitted that co-accused Naseem Ansari(father-in-law) has been granted bail by this Court on 27.06.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23785 of 2018, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the bail application. In this continuation, parity has also been claimed by saying that the case of the applicant is also on the same footing. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.03.2018, having no antecedents to her credit.
Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the relationship of the applicant with the deceased, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties 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-Smt. Zaibunisha, involved in case crime no.169 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station-Khoda, District-Ghaziabad be released on bail 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 HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(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., 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 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 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 her bail so granted by this court.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 Sumit S