Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Allahabad High Court
Shaista vs State Of U.P. on 23 February, 2024
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:32614
Court No. – 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 33088 of 2023
Applicant :- Shaista
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Matter is taken up in the revised call.
By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.113 of 2023 at Police Station-Nagina Dehat, District-Bijnor under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. The applicant is in jail since 02.06.2023.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 30.06.2023.
The following arguments made by Shri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A.-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:
1. The applicant is sister-in-law of the deceased.
2. The applicant never harassed the deceased or demand dowry. She never interfered in the marital life of the deceased and her husband.
3. The applicant has been falsely nominated only to bring the entire family of the husband of the deceased in disrepute.
4. The role of the applicant is distinguishable from that of the husband of the deceased.
5. The applicant did not abet or instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
6. The prerequisites for attracting the presumptions under Section 304B IPC are not made out in the facts and circumstances and evidence of the case.
7. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.
8. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant-Shaista 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 below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
It is clarified that in case the trial court finds that applicant or any co-accused who has been enlarged on bail does not cooperate in the trial or adopt dilatory tactics, the learned trial court shall record a finding to this effect and proceed to cancel the bail without recourse to this Court.
However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The learned trial court shall proceed with the hearing on a day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated timeline of one year is strictly adhered to. All witnesses and counsels are directed to cooperate with the trial proceedings.
The trial court has also to be conscious of the rights of the accused persons and is under obligation of law to ensure that all expeditious, necessary and coercive measures as per law are adopted to ensure the presence of witnesses. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel.
The learned trial court shall issue summons by regular process as per Section 62 Cr.P.C. and also by registered post as provided under Section 69 Cr.P.C. to expedite the trial.
The learned trial court shall promptly take out all strict coercive measures against all the witnesses in accordance with law who fail to appear in the trial proceeding. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel.
The police authorities shall ensure that warrants or any coercive measures as per law taken out by the learned trial court to ensure that the attendance of the witnesses are promptly executed.
The Superintendent of Police, Bijnor shall file an affidavit before the trial court on the date fixed regarding status of execution of the warrants/service of summons taken out by the learned trial court.
In case there is a failure on part of the police authorities to execute the warrants or other coercive measures, the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor shall state the reasons for the same in the said affidavit and also show the steps taken to execute the warrants. The Superintendent of Police, Bijnor shall simultaneously inform the Additional Director General of Police (ADG), Bareilly Zone about the aforesaid failure of the police authorities in the first instance to execute the warrants and coercive measures issued by the learned trial court. If required, the Additional Director General of Police (ADG), Bareilly Zone may issue an appropriate directions to ensure that the warrants issued are promptly executed by the learned trial court.
The delay in execution of warrants and consequent absence of witnesses is one of the principal causes of delays in criminal trials and has to be addressed effectively by all stakeholders.
The counsels as well as the learned trial court are directed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Noor Alam Vs. State of U.P. rendered in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53159 of 2021. In case any strike happens during the course of the trial, the learned trial court is directed to ensure full compliance of the directions issued in Noor Alam (supra) so that the pace of the trial does not suffer.
It is further directed that in case any accused person who has been enlarged on bail does not cooperate in the trial or adopts dilatory tactics, the learned trial court shall record a finding to this effect and cancel the bail without recourse to this Court.
The trial judge shall submit a fortnightly report on the progress of trial and the steps taken to comply with this order to the learned District Judge.
The learned District Judge shall also ensure that the directions issued by this Court are duly complied with.
A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial judge through the learned District Judge, Bijnor by the Registrar (Compliance) by FAX.
Order Date :- 23.2.2024
Ashish Tripathi
