High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45750 of 2021 Applicant :- Madhu Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Subhash Chand Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Sri Subhash Chand, learned counsel for first informant. 2. Perused the record. 3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Madhu Devi seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 101 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chandaus, District Aligarh duing pending of trial. 4. It transpires from record that marriage of Deepak (son of applicant) was solemnized with Madhuri Singh on 30.12.2017. However, just after expiry of a period of three years and five months from the date of marriage of Deepak, son of applicant an unfortunate incident occurred on 15.06.2021 in which daughter-in-law of applicant namely Madhuri Singh committed suicide by hanging herself. The information regarding aforesaid incident was given by Munesh Kumar husband of applicant at the concerned police station. On the basis of aforesaid information the inquest (panchnama) of body of the deceased was conducted. In the opinion of panch witnesses the nature of death of the deceased was suicidal. At this juncture, first informant, Hemant Singh lodged the F.I.R. dated 16.06.2021, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0101 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chandaus, District Aligarh. In the aforesaid F.I.R. four persons namely Deepak (husband), Muneshpal (father-in-law), Madhu Devi (mother-in-law) and Ankit (brother-in-law) have been nominated as named accused. 5. Subsequent to aforesaid F.I.R. post mortem of the body of deceased was conducted. In the opinion of autopsy surgeon cause of death of deceased was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. Except for the ligature mark no other external or internal ante mortem injury was found on the body of deceased. Investigating Officer upon completion of statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. submitted a charge-sheet dated 09.09.2021, whereby three of the named accused i.e. Deepak (husband), Muneshpal (father-in-law), Madhu Devi (mother-in-law) have been charge-sheeted under Section 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, whereas other named accused Ankit has been exculpated. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased but she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegations made in F.I.R. regarding demand of dowry are vague and false. She is not beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry. The applicant is an old lady aged about 55 years and is in jail since 07.09.2021, having no criminal antecedents to her credit except the present one. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that the applicant being a lady is liable to be enlarged on bail by virtue of Section 437 Cr.P.C. Co-accused Munesh Kumar Singh father-in-law of deceased and husband of applicant has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 13.09.2021. Case of present applicant is similar and identical to aforesaid co-accused. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant can be distinguished from aforesaid co-accused. As such applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He contends that applicant is a charge sheeted accused. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant. 8. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record as well as the complicity of applicant and accusation made but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Madhu 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/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. 10. 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 :- 8.2.2022 Abhishek Singh Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH Date: 2022.02.09 11:00:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad