Kamta Nishad v. State of U.P.). On the above premise
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:155933 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32975 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Smt. Saroj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamta Prasad,Mahesh Prasad Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. Heard Mr. Mahesh Prasad Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Smt. Saroj seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.76 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Sumerpur, district Hamirpur, during the pendency of trial. Perused the record. Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 05.10.2022, a delayed FIR dated 06.02.2023 was lodged by first informant-Ram Sevak (father of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No.0076 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC, police station Sumerpur, district Hamirppur. In the aforesaid FIR, five persons, namely, Chandra Dev; Kamta Nishad; Smt. Saroj; Sunita and Munish have been nominated as named accused. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant submits that co-accused Kamta Nishad, father-in-law of the deceased has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.32227 of 2023 (Kamta Nishad Vs. State of U.P.). On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that the case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of aforementioned named co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. There is nothing on record on the basis of which the case of the present applicant could be so distinguished from aforementioned named co-accused so as to deny bail to applicant. On the basis of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail order dated 24.07.2023, he submits that applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Even otherwise, applicant is a woman of clean antecedents inasmuch as, she has no criminal history to her credit except the present one. The applicant is in custody since 11.04.2023. As such she has undergone more than three months of incarceration. The police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC has already been submitted. As such the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged on the basis of which it can be said that custodial arrest of applicant is absolutely necessary during the pendency of trial. He therefore submits that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. Having heard the leaned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made, and coupled with the fact that named and charge-sheeted co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, the case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of named and charge- sheeted co-accused Kamta Nishad, who is father-in-law of the deceased, whereas the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased, police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC has already been submitted as such the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized, in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone but without making any comment on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Smt. Saroj, involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with 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 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under section 229-A I.P.C. (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 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 sufÏcient 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 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 :- 3.8.2023. Rks. Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad