Smt. Sunita Devi v. State of U.P

Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46968 of 2023 Applicant :- Smt. Sunita Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sayed Sohail Asgar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶1List revised.

¶2Heard Sri Sayed Sohail Asgar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶3Learned A.G.A. submits that he has received instructions in the matter for which time was granted on 3.11.2023.

¶4This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Smt. Sunita Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 46 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B, 316 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S. Pachchim Sharira, District Kaushambi.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that marriage of the deceased/Smt. Rani Devi was solemnized with Aman Kumar the son of the applicant on 09.12.2022 in the Chief Minister group marriage ceremony. It is argued that certificate of the said marriage is stated to be annexed with the F.I.R. It is argued that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including the applicant. It is argued that the husband of the deceased has been arrested and is in jail. It is argued that the cause of death as opined by the doctor is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. It is further argued that except ligature mark no other bodily injury was found on her body. It is argued that the incident in the present matter is alleged to have taken place on 27.2.2023 for which the First Information Report has been lodged on 04.3.2023 which is after 6 days of the alleged incident for which there is no plausible explanation. It is further argued that being a lady, she is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. The applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para-34 of the affidavit and is in jail since 6.4.2023. It is also argued that father-in-law of the deceased namely Shiv Das Saroj has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.7.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27038 of 2023, copy of which has been produced before the Court which is taken on record.

¶6Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments as raised.

¶7After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. The applicant is a lady and such she is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. Cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. The husband of the deceased is in jail. Except ligature mark no other bodily injury was found on the body of the deceased.

¶8Looking 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.

¶9Let the applicant-Smt. Sunita 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.

¶10The 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.

¶11The bail application is allowed. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 28.11.2023/Naresh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad