HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 28
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 21993 of 2019
Applicant :- Smt. Ramrati
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Zafar Abbas
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
This second bail application has been filed by applicant Smt. Ramrati for seeking her enlargement on bail during pendency of S.T. No. 2126 of 2018 (State Vs. Kuldeep and others), under Sections 498A, Section304 B IPC and Section 3/Section4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kundarki, District Moradabad, pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No. 1, Moradabad.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 16.1.2019. Subsequently, father-in-law of deceased namely Munna Singh, husband of the present applicant has been enlarged on bail, vide order dated 26.11.2019.
On the aforesaid factual premise, learned counsel for applicant submits that once the father-in-law of the deceased has been enlarged on bail by this Court, the applicant, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased is liable to enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute the legal submission urged by learned counsel for applicant, whereby prayer for bail has been pressed on the ground of parity.
Having heard learned counsel for parties, considering the material on record and also the complicity of the accused, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose shall now be served by keeping present applicant in jail. Consequently, bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Smt. Ramrati 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 concerned with the following 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 date 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 Sectionsection 229-A I.P.C..
(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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Sectionsection 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.
(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 6.12.2019