HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Case :- BAIL No. – 2411 of 2020
Applicant :- Smt. Radhika
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Salil Tripathi,Ajit Shukla,Awanish Kumar Rai,Deepak Kumar Pandey,Gopal Krishna Dixit,Ragini Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Anant Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State electronically and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.0401 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 304B, 315 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Banthara, District Lucknow.
In this case applicant is mother-in-law. As per version of F.I.R. marriage of the daughter of the complainant had taken place with co-accused Ranjit Kumar on 8th March, 2019. It is alleged that in the marriage sufficient dowry was given but the in-laws were not happy with the given dowry and it is alleged that inspite of sufficient dowry demand of additional dowry was made and due to non fulfillment of the said demand, victim was constantly tortured and ultimately on 12.10.2019 the deceased committed suicide.
It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is a widow lady and mother-in-law. No specific role has been assigned to her. Only general allegations have been made. It is further stated that applicant does not appear to be the beneficiary of the dowry. As per post mortem report except ligature mark which was interrupted by 3 C.M., no other injury was found on her body.
Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
Let applicant (Smt. Radhika) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :-
(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.
Order Date :- 24.4.2020