Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P.), therefore, the
Case Details
Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40072 of 2022 Applicant :- Sharda Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Dev Rai,Jawahir Yadav,Kuldeep Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Jawahir Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kuldeep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ratan Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The present bail application filed on behalf of the applicant Sharda Devi seeking her bail in connection with Case Crime No.60 of 2022, under Sections 323, 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Basarehar, District Etawah. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and co- accused father-in-law-Kaptan Singh has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41407 of 2022 (Kaptan Singh vs. State of U.P.), therefore, the applicant herein is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. It is submitted that the applicant is innocent with no previous criminal history and is in jail since 01.07.2022 and in case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. The order dated 15.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41407 of 2022 is quoted as under: "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Kuldeep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record. This bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 60 of 2022, under Section 323, 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Basrehar, District Etawah, during pendency of trial. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case only on account of being the father-in-law of the deceased. The applicant's son Sunny was married to the deceased on 29.06.2020. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that general and false allegation of demand of additional dowry has been made against the applicant and no specific allegation of torturing the deceased has been made against him. Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of the Court to the post-mortem report of the deceased, wherein except ligature mark, there is no other injury on the person of the deceased and the cause of death has been noted to be ante-mortem hanging. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 01.07.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial by all means. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the evidence, as such, he be released on bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that general allegation of demand of additional dowry has been made against the applicant and the victim died on account of hanging. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it is evident that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case only on account of being the father-in-law of the deceased and the applicant's son Sunny was married to the deceased on 29.06.2020. General and false allegation of demand additional dowry has been made against the applicant and he has not been assigned any specific role to play in the said incident. Perusal of the post-mortem report shows that except ligature mark, there is no other injury on the person of the deceased and the cause of death has been noted to be ante-mortem hanging. The applicant is in jail since 01.07.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit. The charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the evidence. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Let the applicant Kaptan Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- 1. The applicant shall continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release. 2. The applicant shall not tamper with the witnesses. 3. The applicant shall not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period. It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail. The bail application is accordingly allowed." Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Sharda Devi who is involved in aforementioned Case Crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (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 HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. (iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSE 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 FAIL 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. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming her independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. 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. Office is directed to print the name of Sri Kuldeep Singh Yadav, learned Advocate from the side of the informant and not from the side of the applicant. Order Date :- 28.11.2022 Nitendra Digitally signed by NITENDRA TIWARI Date: 2022.11.29 10:12:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad