Anarjeet and Another v. State of U.P

Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51041 of 2023 Applicant :- Anarjeet And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Parmeshwar Yadav,Pawan Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶1Heard Mr. Parmeshwar Yadav, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶2Perused the record.

¶3This application for bail has been filed by applicants-Anarjeet (Father-in-law) and Prabhavati (Mother-in-law) of the deceased, seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 249 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Secgtions 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Shyamdeurawa, District-Maharajganj during the pendency of trial.

¶4Record shows that marriage of Umesh (son of applicants) was solemnized with Monika on 12.06.2022. However, unfortunately, after expiry of a period of 1 year, 1 month and few days from the date of marriage of the son of applicants, an unfortunate incident occurred on 24.07.2023 in which, the daughter-in-law of applicants namely Monika died.

¶5However, without giving any information to the family members of deceased or at the concerned Police Station, the dead body of deceased was cremated. Subsequently, the mother of deceased namely Smt. Dharma Devi lodged an FIR dated

25.07.2023 and was registered as Case Crime No. 249 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Secgtions 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Shyamdeurawa, District-Maharajganj. In the aforesaid FIR, 6 persons namely - (1) Umesh,

(2) Anarjeet, (3) Prabhavati, (4) Jeth, (5) Jethani and (6) Devar have been nominated as named accused.

¶6The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is that apart from the usual narration with regard to the marriage of deceased and the date of marriage, the FIR further records that there was a deficiency of Rs. 30 thousand in the amount of dowry that was agreed to be paid at the time of marriage of the son of applicants. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the named accused caused physical and mental cruelty upon deceased on account of non-fulfillment of aforesaid balance amount of dowry. The FIR ultimately concludes with the recital that the daughter of the first informant was put to death on 24.07.2023 and without giving any information to the first informant, her dead body was cremated.

¶7Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased, named and charge sheeted accused yet they are liable to be enlarged on bail. Applicants cannot be said to be the beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry. The son of the applicants i.e. husband of deceased is already languishing in jail. Moreover, the amount of dowry which is alleged to be payable by the parents of deceased is only Rs. 30 thousand. Considering the above, he submits that it is impossible that for aforementioned pity amount, the daughter-in-law of applicants shall be put to death. Moreover, the applicant-Prabhavati is a lady and therefore, she is entitled to the benefits of the provisions contained in proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C.

¶8Even otherwise, applicants are of clean antecedents inasmuch as, they have no criminal history to their credit except the present one. Applicants are in jail since 26.07.2023. As such, they have undergone more than 4 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted on

15.10.2023 whereby applicants have been charge sheeted under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Secgtions 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act whereas the investigation in respect of other named accused is still pending. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicants stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicants during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, he submits that applicants are liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶9Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased, a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, they do not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The death of the deceased has occurred just after expiry of a period of 1 year, 1 month and few days from the date of her marriage. The deceased was a young lady whose death has occurred in unnatural circumstances. Applicants being the mother-in-law and father-in-law of deceased and also inmates of the house in which, the occurrence has occurred are required to not only explain the manner of occurrence but also their innocence in terms of Sections 106 and 113-B of the Evidence Act. However, the applicants have miserably failed to discharge the said burden up to this stage. The dead body of deceased was disposed of without informing the family members of deceased or by informing the police at the concerned Police Station. As such, neither the inquest nor the post mortem of the body of deceased could be conducted. Consequently, the cause of death of deceased is unascertainable. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. contends that no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicants.

¶10Having heard, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that since applicant-Prabhavati is a lady, therefore, she is entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C., therefore, applicant-Prabhavati alone is entitled to be enlarged on bail, the learned counsel for applicants could not dislodge the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. with reference to the record at this stage qua the applicant-Anarjeet, therefore, irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the bail application of applicant-Anarjeet, this Court does not find any good or sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant-Anarjeet on bail, as such, the prayer for bail of applicant-Anarjeet is refused. Consequently, the bail application is liable to be partly allowed.

¶11Accordingly, the bail application is partly allowed. The prayer for bail of applicant-Anarjeet is refused whereas the prayer for bail of applicant-Prabhavati is allowed.

¶12Let the applicant-Prabhavati, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her 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 SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/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 HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/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 HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

(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 THE HIM/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.

¶13However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his 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. Order Date :- 29.11.2023 Vinay High Court of Judicature at Allahabad