HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 27
Case :- BAIL No. – 12555 of 2019
Applicant :- Rukmani
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that general allegations of demanding motorcycle as an additional dowry and torture has been levelled against all the accused persons. He further submits that applicant is mother-in-law. In the postmortem report, cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. Apart from the ligature mark, there is no ante mortem injury on the person of the deceased. He further submits that allegation of demand of dowry are total unfounded. No specific allegation has been made against the present accused applicant. He further submits that applicant was living separately from the deceased at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that applicant is in jail since 21.08.2019.
It is lastly 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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the period for which she is in jail and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant, Rukmani involved in Case Crime No. 276/2019, under Sections 498A, Section304B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station – Talgaon, District – Sitapur be released on bail 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 will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) 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. 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019