HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 30
Case :- BAIL No. – 2458 of 2020
Applicant :- Kamini
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Yadav,Meenakshi Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant for releasing her on bail during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No.36 of 2019, under Sections-498A, 304-B I.P.C. Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Machhrehta, District- Sitapur.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. It is further contended that accused applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased having aged about 55 years. It is further submitted that the entire family members of the deceased husband have been implicated in the case only on the basis of the general allegations without naming anyone for murdering daughter of the informant. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that from the perusal of the postmortem report, cause of death of the deceased due to taking poisonous which was confirmed by viscera report. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that daughter of the informant herself committed suicide by taking poisonous etc. The accused-applicant is languishing in jail since 02.11.2019, and having no criminal history against the applicant. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant, Kamini, involved in Case Crime No.36 of 2019, under Sections-498A, 304-B I.P.C. Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Machhrehta, District- Sitapur 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 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 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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
Order Date :- 6.3.2020