HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 4875 of 2020

Applicant :- Smt. Ram Pyari

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Mishra

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Suneet Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

As per the prosecution case, applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased; the deceased was married in May 2017; she succumbed to her injuries for want of dowry; she was pregnant.

It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that at the time of death the family members of the deceased were present; she was cremated in the presence of the family members; there is no post mortem or medical examination report; the F.I.R. was lodged belatedly after two and half months. It is urged that deceased died during treatment of her pregnancy; applicant has been falsely implicated. It is lastly submitted that the applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent and she is languishing in jail since 19.08.2019, there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, she will never misuse her liberty and will co-operate in the trial.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

Let the applicant, Smt. Ram Pyari, involved in Case Crime No. 750 of 2019, under section 498A, 304B I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 :- 3.2.2020

K.K. Maurya