High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46328 of 2021 Applicant :- Jagpati Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Verma,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Asthana,Pramod Kumar Srivastava,Tarkeshwari Prasad Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State who are virtually connected . Perused the record. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Jagpati Devi seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 359 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Bhelupur, District Varanasi, during pendency of trial. It transpires from record that marriage of Unnati Singh was solemnized with Umesh Singh three years prior to the occurrence. Just after expiry of a period of three years from the date of marriage of Unnati Singh with Umesh Singh, an unfortunate incident occurred on 22.07.2021, in which Unnati Singh died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. No information regarding the aforesaid incident was given by applicant or any of her family members at the concerned Police Station. F.I.R. in respect of aforesaid incident was lodged by first informant Dinesh Kumar Singh, father of deceased on 22.07.2021 and was registered as Case Crime No. 359 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Bhelupur, District Varanasi. In the aforesaid F.I.R. two persons namely Umesh Singh (husband) and Suddhu Ram (father-in-law) of the deceased, who were nominated as named accused, whereas an unknown person was also nominated as an accused. Subsequent to aforesaid F.I.R., the inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 22.7.2021. In the opinion of panch witnesses, death of deceased was characterized as suidial. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted thereafter. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, cause of death of deceased was asphyxia due to ante mortem injuries. Autopsy Surgeon found following ante mortem injures on the body of the deceased:- (1) Ligature mark all around neck 28 cm with Gap of 4 cm back of Right Neck. Ligature size is 3 to 4 cm and Right Ligature is 4 cm below Right Ear and 5 cm below Left Side from Left Ear. Upper mark to Top of Head is 22 cm, and sternum notch to Ligature Mark is 8 cm and Lower Mark is Right Heel is 147 cm, Skin under ligature is parchment like and tissue under beneath is Echymosis. (2) Contusion left 3 x 3 cm and 1 below. (3) Contusion 3 x 1 cm found on lower 17 cm Right knee. (4) Contusion Right Forearm 1 x 1 cm 9 cm above wrist joint. Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. Applicant is mother-in-law of deceased. Applicant being a lady is liable to be enlarged on bail by virtue of provisions contained in Section 437 Cr. P. C. It is next contended that father-in-law of deceased Suddhu Ram Patel has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide order dated 3.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47181 of 2021 (Suddhu Ram Patel Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, same is reproduced herein under:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.359 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304 B, 302 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Bhelupur, District Varanasi, during pendency of the trial. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is father-in-law of deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case; deceased and his son were living separately; From the postmortem report, it is clear that deceased committed suicide. It is next submitted that there is no injury on the body of the deceased except ligature mark; there is no allegation regarding demand of dowry; and the applicant has no concern with the case. Moreover, there is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant is not a previous convict. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.07.2021 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as counsel for the informant opposed the bail application of the applicant. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the mandate laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, Suddhu Ram Patel, who is involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on his 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. 1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. 2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. 3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. 4. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail." On the aforesaid premise, it is contended by learned Senior counsel that the case of applicant is similar and identical to co-accused Suddhu Ram Patel. For the facts and reasons recorded in the order dated 3.12.2021, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Learned Senior counsel further contends that deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. No such ante mortem injury has been found on the body of deceased, on the basis of which bona fide of present applicant can be doubted. Applicant is in jail since 23.7.2021. As such she has undergone almost six months of incarceration. In Case, applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail. On the aforesaid premise, learned Senior counsel submits that applicant be enlarged on bail. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application for bail. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the state and upon perusal of material brought on record, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and accusation made,the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Jagpati Devi, 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 sufficient 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 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 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. The party is permitted to file a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court before the court concerned, who shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of Allahabad High Court and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. Order Date :- 19.1.2022 HSM