Sandeep v. State of U.P.), copy of the said order has been placed before the Court

2. Heard Sri Kartikey Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Anarkali seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 190 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Rudhauli, District Basti.

4. This is a third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 17.12.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.41432 of 2021. Thereafter the second bail application of the applicant was dismissed in non-prosecution vide order dated 27.9.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12122 of 2022.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that this is a third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits vide order dated 17.12.2021 by this Court whereas the second bail application of the applicant was dismissed in non-prosecution vide order dated 27.9.2023 by this Court but subsequently Sandeep, the husband of the deceased was granted bail vide order dated 9.1.2023 passed in Criminal Mis. Bail Application No.18237 of 2021 (Sandeep Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the said order has been placed before the Court as annexure no.12 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is submitted that since the husband of the deceased has been granted bail, the applicant who is the mother-in-law of the deceased also deserves to be granted bail. It is submitted that the applicant is a lady and has no criminal antecedents. She is in jail since 26.2.2021. Further while placing third supplementary affidavit dated 11.1.2025, it is submitted that the trial in the present matter is going on in which two prosecution witnesses have been examined. It is submitted that Sujata was examined as P.W.2 who by a relation was the maternal grand-mother of the deceased. She in her cross-examination has stated that the accused persons never demanded any dowry and she was never told of any torture given to her.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court. The second bail application was also dismissed in non-prosecution but the fact that co-accused Sandeep has been granted bail subsequently vide order dated 9.1.2023 is not of any help to the applicant inasmuch as the said order itself states that from the FIR it was clear that the said applicant was at Bombay at the time of incident and dispute took place between the family members of the matrimonial house and the deceased and thereafter she committed suicide by way of hanging after closing the doors from inside. In so far as the role of the applicant is concerned, the same is distinguishable with that of co-accused Sandeep. The witness Sujata was initially examined on 3.10.2024 wherein her examination-in-chief was recorded and part of her cross-examination was done by the defence after which same was adjourned. On the said date she supported the prosecution case. Subsequently on 19.12.2024 which is after about 2 months and 16 days of recording of her testimony on the first day, she was further cross-examined who then did not support the prosecution case which goes to show that there had been tempering with evidence. There is no fresh and new ground argued. The bail application be thus rejected.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2021, the said order reads as under:- "Heard Sri Kamal Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjai Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Anarkali, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 190 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Rudhauli, District Basti. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased Smt. Manjeeta. It is argued while placed para 18 of the affidavit that the deceased was a short tampered lady and was pressurizing her husband- Sandeep to live separately from his parents. Husband of the deceased was living in Mumbai and was working there and was unable to take her there due to financial conditions but since he refused the same, she committed suicide. It is further argued that the deceased committed suicide which is evident from the fact that the room in which her body was found hanging was bolted from inside. It is further submitted that even the post mortem report is suggestive of sucide as the doctor has found a ligature mark on her body and the cause of death is opined as asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. It is further argued that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case it is apparent that the deceased had committed suicide and the implication of the applicant and other co-accused persons in the present case is false and concocted. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 15 of the affidavit and is languishing in jail since 26.02.2021. Per contra Sri Sanjai Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the husband of the deceased was in Mumbai at the time of the incident and the present applicant was present in the house. It is further argued that the dead body was found hanging on a rope from the ventilator but her legs were on the floor. It is argued that as such the ground of suicide does not appear to be true. It is further argued that the deceased was having a pregnancy and was opined by the Doctor to be having a gravid uterus of about mid term with male body of length 14 cm. It is argued that in the stage of pregnancy of mid term the suicide by a women would not be probable. It is further argued that the applicant is named in the FIR and there is an allegation against her. Her presence there is even fortified from the fact that she gave an information to the police about the death of her daughter-in-law. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR and the argument that the door of the room was bolted from inside does not impress the court as there was another opening being the ventilator, the place from where the deceased was found to be hanging. The deceased was found to be having a pregnancy of mid term. The presence of the applicant at the place of occurrence is not disputed. Before the trial court the defence taken was different and before this Court the defence taken is all together different. The shifting defences also do not help the applicant in any manner. The bail application is thus, rejected."

8. Thereafter the second bail application of the applicant was dismissed in non-prosecution by this Court vide order dated 27.9.2023, the said order reads as under:- "1. List revised.

2. No one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this application. Even there is no request for passing over the matter. Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.

3. This is the second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant Anarkali seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.190 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Rudhauli, District Basti.

5. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41432 of 2021.

6. The incident in the present matter is of the year 2020. It appears that learned counsel appearing in the matter has lost his interest.

7. Since there is no representation on behalf of the applicant, the present second bail application is dismissed in non prosecution. "

9. The ground which is being pressed that co-accused Sandeep has been granted bail vide order dated 9.1.2023 by a coordinate Bench of this Court is not disputed by learned counsel for the State. The said order dated 9.1.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18237 of 2021 (Sandeep Vs. State of U.P.) reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State. There is allegation against the applicant in the FIR of causing dowry death of his wife. From the perusal of the FIR itself it is clear that the applicant was at Bombay at the time of incident. The dispute took place between the family members of the matrimonial home and the deceased and thereafter she committed suicide by way of handing after closing the door from inside. Counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication of the applicant. He was not in his house when the incident took place. Counsel for the informant has placed before this court the bail rejection order of mother- in-law of the deceased, Anarkali and has submitted that since the bail application of the mother-in-law has been rejected, the applicant cannot be granted bail. After hearing the rival contentions, and considering the fact that the applicant was not in his house when the dispute took place which resulted into death of the deceased. The applicant cannot be said to be fully liable for the alleged offence. The applicant is in jail since 14.12.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit. On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail. Regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 has held in Para 16 of the judgment being reproduced herein below as follows :- "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail." Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 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 recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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, Sandeep, involved in Case Crime No. 190 of 2020, under Sections- 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Rudhauli, District- Basti, 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. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order."

10. In the said order itself there is recital in para 4 which goes to show that the case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused Sandeep. The testimony of P.W.2 at the first day of its recording goes to show that she supported the prosecution version but after about more than two months when she was further cross- examined, she gave a different version. This goes to show that there has been winning over of the said witness. The trial is in progress in which two prosecution witnesses have been examined. Release of the applicant at this stage may have an adverse effect on trial.

11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Gaurav Kuls GAURAV KULSHRESTHA GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Kartikey Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Anarkali seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 190 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Rudhauli, District Basti.

4. This is a third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 17.12.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.41432 of 2021. Thereafter the second bail application of the applicant was dismissed in non-prosecution vide order dated 27.9.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12122 of 2022.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that this is a third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits vide order dated 17.12.2021 by this Court whereas the second bail application of the applicant was dismissed in non-prosecution vide order dated 27.9.2023 by this Court but subsequently Sandeep, the husband of the deceased was granted bail vide order dated 9.1.2023 passed in Criminal Mis. Bail Application No.18237 of 2021 (Sandeep Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the said order has been placed before the Court as annexure no.12 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is submitted that since the husband of the deceased has been granted bail, the applicant who is the mother-in-law of the deceased also deserves to be granted bail. It is submitted that the applicant is a lady and has no criminal antecedents. She is in jail since 26.2.2021. Further while placing third supplementary affidavit dated 11.1.2025, it is submitted that the trial in the present matter is going on in which two prosecution witnesses have been examined. It is submitted that Sujata was examined as P.W.2 who by a relation was the maternal grand-mother of the deceased. She in her cross-examination has stated that the accused persons never demanded any dowry and she was never told of any torture given to her.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court. The second bail application was also dismissed in non-prosecution but the fact that co-accused Sandeep has been granted bail subsequently vide order dated 9.1.2023 is not of any help to the applicant inasmuch as the said order itself states that from the FIR it was clear that the said applicant was at Bombay at the time of incident and dispute took place between the family members of the matrimonial house and the deceased and thereafter she committed suicide by way of hanging after closing the doors from inside. In so far as the role of the applicant is concerned, the same is distinguishable with that of co-accused Sandeep. The witness Sujata was initially examined on 3.10.2024 wherein her examination-in-chief was recorded and part of her cross-examination was done by the defence after which same was adjourned. On the said date she supported the prosecution case. Subsequently on 19.12.2024 which is after about 2 months and 16 days of recording of her testimony on the first day, she was further cross-examined who then did not support the prosecution case which goes to show that there had been tempering with evidence. There is no fresh and new ground argued. The bail application be thus rejected.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2021, the said order reads as under:- "Heard Sri Kamal Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjai Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Anarkali, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 190 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Rudhauli, District Basti. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased Smt. Manjeeta. It is argued while placed para 18 of the affidavit that the deceased was a short tampered lady and was pressurizing her husband- Sandeep to live separately from his parents. Husband of the deceased was living in Mumbai and was working there and was unable to take her there due to financial conditions but since he refused the same, she committed suicide. It is further argued that the deceased committed suicide which is evident from the fact that the room in which her body was found hanging was bolted from inside. It is further submitted that even the post mortem report is suggestive of sucide as the doctor has found a ligature mark on her body and the cause of death is opined as asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. It is further argued that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case it is apparent that the deceased had committed suicide and the implication of the applicant and other co-accused persons in the present case is false and concocted. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 15 of the affidavit and is languishing in jail since 26.02.2021. Per contra Sri Sanjai Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the husband of the deceased was in Mumbai at the time of the incident and the present applicant was present in the house. It is further argued that the dead body was found hanging on a rope from the ventilator but her legs were on the floor. It is argued that as such the ground of suicide does not appear to be true. It is further argued that the deceased was having a pregnancy and was opined by the Doctor to be having a gravid uterus of about mid term with male body of length 14 cm. It is argued that in the stage of pregnancy of mid term the suicide by a women would not be probable. It is further argued that the applicant is named in the FIR and there is an allegation against her. Her presence there is even fortified from the fact that she gave an information to the police about the death of her daughter-in-law. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR and the argument that the door of the room was bolted from inside does not impress the court as there was another opening being the ventilator, the place from where the deceased was found to be hanging. The deceased was found to be having a pregnancy of mid term. The presence of the applicant at the place of occurrence is not disputed. Before the trial court the defence taken was different and before this Court the defence taken is all together different. The shifting defences also do not help the applicant in any manner. The bail application is thus, rejected."

8. Thereafter the second bail application of the applicant was dismissed in non-prosecution by this Court vide order dated 27.9.2023, the said order reads as under:- "1. List revised.

2. No one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this application. Even there is no request for passing over the matter. Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.

3. This is the second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant Anarkali seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.190 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Rudhauli, District Basti.

5. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41432 of 2021.

6. The incident in the present matter is of the year 2020. It appears that learned counsel appearing in the matter has lost his interest.

7. Since there is no representation on behalf of the applicant, the present second bail application is dismissed in non prosecution. "

9. The ground which is being pressed that co-accused Sandeep has been granted bail vide order dated 9.1.2023 by a coordinate Bench of this Court is not disputed by learned counsel for the State. The said order dated 9.1.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18237 of 2021 (Sandeep Vs. State of U.P.) reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State. There is allegation against the applicant in the FIR of causing dowry death of his wife. From the perusal of the FIR itself it is clear that the applicant was at Bombay at the time of incident. The dispute took place between the family members of the matrimonial home and the deceased and thereafter she committed suicide by way of handing after closing the door from inside. Counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication of the applicant. He was not in his house when the incident took place. Counsel for the informant has placed before this court the bail rejection order of mother- in-law of the deceased, Anarkali and has submitted that since the bail application of the mother-in-law has been rejected, the applicant cannot be granted bail. After hearing the rival contentions, and considering the fact that the applicant was not in his house when the dispute took place which resulted into death of the deceased. The applicant cannot be said to be fully liable for the alleged offence. The applicant is in jail since 14.12.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit. On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail. Regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 has held in Para 16 of the judgment being reproduced herein below as follows :- "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail." Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 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 recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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, Sandeep, involved in Case Crime No. 190 of 2020, under Sections- 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Rudhauli, District- Basti, 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. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order."

10. In the said order itself there is recital in para 4 which goes to show that the case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused Sandeep. The testimony of P.W.2 at the first day of its recording goes to show that she supported the prosecution version but after about more than two months when she was further cross- examined, she gave a different version. This goes to show that there has been winning over of the said witness. The trial is in progress in which two prosecution witnesses have been examined. Release of the applicant at this stage may have an adverse effect on trial.

11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Gaurav Kuls GAURAV KULSHRESTHA GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad