Kalawati Devi v. State of U.P

Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13103 of 2023 Applicant :- Kalawati Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jagdish Singh,Akhilesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Singh,Yogendra Yadav Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶1Heard Sri Yogendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶2Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the cause list, his name and the name of Shri Akhilesh Singh, although is shown as learned counsel for the first informant, but the same is an erroneous printing. He submits that the name of Shri Akhilesh Singh is printed as the learned counsel appearing for the both sides although he is appearing for the applicant.

¶3This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Kalawati Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 164 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Bhaluani, District Deoria.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased Meera Devi. She has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the marriage of Meera Devi was solemnized with Sarvesh Gond the son of the applicant in the year 2018. It is further argued that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant and all the accused persons. The deceased committed suicide which is suggestive from the postmortem examination report, wherein, the deceased has received a single ligature mark on her body and the cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. It is argued that co-accused Radhe Shyam Gond the father-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.03.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 800 of 2023, the copy of the said order is has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. It is argued that Sarvesh Gond the husband of the deceased is in jail. The applicant is a lady and is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 19 and is in jail since 19.11.2022.

¶5Per contra, learned counsel for the State have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the first information report along with other accused persons and there are allegations against her in the first information report.

¶6After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant and other accused persons in the first information report. The husband of the deceased is in jail. The cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

¶7Looking 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.

¶8Let the applicant-Kalawati 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 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 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.

(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 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.

(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 her in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her 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.

¶9The 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.

¶10The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 30.10.2023 Vipasha (Samit Gopal,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad