Sabita Singh vs State Of U.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 10056 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 53
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14118 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Sabita Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Dubey,Gyanendra Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A for the State.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is sister-in-law (Jethani) of deceased and that she has not committed any offence. The marriage of deceased with brother-in-law of applicant has taken place one and a half year prior to the incident. It was stated that though the cause of death has been shown strangulation but no specific role has been attributed to applicant and that only general allegations of dowry demand and harassment have been levelled against the applicant and four accused persons. It has been submitted that applicant along with her husband was residing at village Pakadi, which is at a distance of 29 kms from the village, where alleged incident took place. It was further submitted that applicant is sister-in-law of deceased and that she was not going to be benefited by fulfillment of alleged dowry demand. It has been further submitted that co-accused Kamalawati, who is mother-in-law of deceased, Suresh Singh, who is father-in-law of deceased and accused Amit Kuamr Singh, who is Jeth of deceased and husband of applicant, have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.01.2021, 28.07.2021 and 29.07.2021, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42886 of 2020, 42920 of 2020 and 15707 of 2021. It has been further submitted that the applicant is a lady and she is languishing in jail since 23.12.2020, and that in case the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the first informant has submitted that applicant cannot claim party with the bail of co-accused persons. It was pointed out that bail to co-accused Kamalawati has been granted on a wrong premise and in fact, deceased has sustained injuries and cause of death has been shown asphyxia as a result of strangulation, whereas in bail orders of co-accused persons it has been observed that deceased has not sustained any injury. Learned counsel has referred the postmortem report of deceased and also referred the Treatise of Modi and Parikh and submitted that in attending facts and circumstances of the case, it was not possible or probable that one person alone might have caused death of deceased by strangulation. It was stated that in view of postmortem report of deceased, it is quite apparent that deceased was done to death by several persons. Regarding argument of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was living separately, it has been submitted that in this regard the applicant has relied on certificate issued by Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Pakadi, Pandah, Ballia and that certificate has been got prepared on 12.10.2020 and that no other reliable document has been produced. Learned counsel for the informant has also referred the case of Sonu vs. Sonu Yadav & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 2021), decided on 05.04.2021 and submitted that in bail of co-accused persons, relevant facts and positions of law has not been considered and thus, no case for bail is made out.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

In case of Sonu vs. Sonu Yadav & Anr (supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"In the earlier part of this judgment, we have extracted the lone sentence in the order of the High Court which is intended to display some semblance of reasoning for justifying the grant of bail. The sentence which we have extracted earlier contains an omnibus amalgam of (i) "the entire facts and circumstances of the case"; (ii) "submissions of learned Counsel for the parties"; (iii) "the nature of offence"; (iv) "evidence"; and (v) "complicity of accused". This is followed by an observation that the "applicant has made out a case for bail", "without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case". This does not constitute the kind of reasoning which is expected of a judicial order. The High Court cannot be oblivious, in a case such as the present, of the seriousness of the alleged offence, where a woman has met an unnatural end within a year of marriage. The seriousness of the alleged offence has to be evaluated in the backdrop of the allegation that she was being harassed for dowry; and that a telephone call was received from the accused in close-proximity to the time of death, making a demand. There are specific allegations of harassment against the accused on the ground of dowry. An order without reasons is fundamentally contrary to the norms which guide the judicial process. The administration of criminal justice by the High Court cannot be reduced to a mantra containing a recitation of general observations. That there has been a judicious application of mind by the judge who is deciding an application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C must emerge from the quality of the reasoning which is embodied in the order granting bail. While the reasons may be brief, it is the quality of the reasons which matters the most. That is because the reasons in a judicial order unravel the thought process of a trained judicial mind. We are constrained to make these observations because the reasons indicated in the judgment of the High Court in this case are becoming increasingly familiar in matters which come to this Court. It is time that such a practice is discontinued and that the reasons in support of orders granting bail comport with a judicial process which brings credibility to the administration of criminal justice."

Keeping in view the above stated law in mind, in the instant case it is not disputed that applicant is sister-in-law (Jethani) of deceased and that marriage of deceased with brother-in-law of applicant has taken place about one and a half year prior to the incident. Though, in postmortem report, one injury i.e. ligature mark horizontally continuous around the neck below thyroid has been shown but no specific role has been attributed to applicant. It is also the case of applicant that applicant was residing in another village and that similarly placed co-accused have already been granted bail.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant Sabita Singh involved in Case Crime No. 254 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Ballia, be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

1. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

2.The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

3.The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

5.The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 11.8.2021

A. Tripathi