Allahabad High Court
Smt. Kamlesh vs State Of U.P. on 25 October, 2016
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35104 of 2016
Applicant :- Smt. Kamlesh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 149 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 I.P.C and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Iglas, District - Aligarh, with the prayer to enlarge her on bail.
It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that in the dying declaration no role has been assigned to the applicant, who is mother-in-law, and is aged about 60 years. It is further stated that husband of the applicant (father-in-law of the deceased), has already been granted bail by this Court vide order 30.09.2016, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32965 of 2016 ? (Prem Prakash Vs. State of U.P).
It is contented by learned counsel for applicant that only allegation against the applicant, who is mother-in-law is that she used to quarrel with the deceased. The main allegation is levelled against Virendra (in jail), whose case stands on a different footing. The applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 19.07.2016 and, in case, she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A 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 the applicant - Smt. Kamlesh 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 case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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.
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 :- 25.10.2016.
Vinod.
