HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 2
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 9049 of 2020
Applicant :- Smt. Munni Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Narayan Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant involved in Case Crime No. 238 of 2019, under Section 498A, 304-B, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Jalesar, District Etah.
As per prosecution case, applicant is mother-in-law; marriage is of 2016; earlier report (Crime Case No. 408 of 2016) was lodged for demand of dowry against the applicant and his family members but on the statement of the deceased in October 2016, closure report was filed; post mortem report shows single gun shot injury passing through stomach and exit wound on the back; there is general allegation against the applicant.
It is urged that it is a case of suicide as is reflected from the statement of the independent witnesses; demand of dowry is not attributable to the applicant; co-accused Mahesh Babu (father-in-law of the deceased) has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.2.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8583 of 2020; applicant is languishing in jail since 22.8.2019, having no criminal antecedent and in case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
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-Smt. Munni Devi 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 :- 27.2.2020