HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 44293 of 2016
Applicant :- Smt. Savitri
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 814 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Kalyanpur, District- Kanpur Nagar with the prayer to enlarge her on bail.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and by levelling general allegation, the applicant along with entire family of the deceased including the husband of the deceased has been falsely implicated. It has been submitted that from postmortem report of the deceased it appears that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of anti-mortem hanging. It has been submitted that nothing abnormal was detected in respect of hyoid bone. It has been submitted that the case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of the husband of the deceased. It has been submitted that the applicant is an innocent lady; she has been falsely implicated; she has no previous criminal history; she is in jail since 16.08.2016 and, in case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant Smt. Savitri be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(ii) 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;
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;
(iv) 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; and
(v) 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 :- 19.12.2016