Smt. Mamta v. State of U.P.), copy of the order is annexed as annexure
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80943 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16593 of 2025 Applicant :- Satyabhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hanuman Prasad Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Hanuman Prasad Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Satyabhan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 0067 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Banpur, District Lalitpur. 4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 26.03.2024 by Narayan against the applicant and Smt. Mamta mother-in-law alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter Raj Kumari with the applicant in the year 2023. After marriage there was a demand of money and dowry many times for which the deceased used to be assaulted by them for the same. On 24.03.2024 his daughter informed him on mobile that the accused persons are assaulting her after which he received information that she has committed suicide and died. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted in which the doctor found a single ligature mark on her body and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging although the viscera was preserved. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that in so far as the cause of death is concerned, the same was conclusive as per the postmortem examination report. It is submitted that the trial in the matter is going on in which Narayan the first informant was examined as PW-1 and Smt. Munni Prajapati the wife of the informant was examined as PW-2 and both the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile, copy of the statements have been placed before the Court which is annexure 3 and 4 respectively to the affidavit. It is submitted that as such the implication of the applicant in the present case is without any credible evidence. It is submitted that there is no specification in the FIR regarding the actual demand. It is submitted that co-accused Smt. Mamta has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.03.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 30439 of 2024 (Smt. Mamta Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order is annexed as annexure 6 to the affidavit. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 21 of the affidavit and is in jail since 27.03.2024. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that co-accused Smt. Mamta the mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail and two witnesses have been declared hostile. 7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the trial in the matter is going on in which the first informant Narayan was examined as PW-1 and Smt. Munni Prajapati the wife of the first informant was examined as PW-2 who have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. There is no specification regarding the actual demand of dowry by the accused persons. Co-accused Smt. Mamta the mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 9. Let the applicant Satyabhan, 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (v) 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 him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229- A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. 10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. 11. The bail application is allowed.
Decision
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad