HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 2
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 4025 of 2020
Applicant :- Satyawati
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Brajesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Shri Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the informant, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant involved in Case Crime No.236 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Arniya, District Bulandshahar.
It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. It is alleged that marriage of the deceased and his son (Jai Prakash) is of 1-1/2 years; deceased was strangulated to death for want of dowry; specific role has been assigned to the husband. It is alleged that postmortem report shows strangulation; hyoid bone is fractured; there is abrasion and other external injury; applicant and her husband have a separate ration card and kitchen; applicant has been falsely implicated; statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., informant has specifically assigned the role to the husband; in similar circumstances, co accused-Ramayana, father-in-law, has been released on bail by this Court vide order passed today in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3918 of 2020; case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of the her son (Jai Prakash); applicant is in jail since 3.11.2019, and in case applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but they do not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant-Satyawati, be released on bail in the above case on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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.
(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 her in accordance with law.
However, it is made clear that in case the applicant indulges in intimidating or threatening any witness, the State or Prosecutor would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 27.1.2020