Allahabad High Court
Ram Rati vs State Of U.P. on 30 July, 2021
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- BAIL No. - 8527 of 2019
Applicant :- Ram Rati
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Paltoo Ram Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri P. L. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The applicant is an accused in case crime No.225 of 2016, under Sections- 498A, 304 B, 326 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Gosainganj, District Lucknow.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has contended that the F.I.R. in this case was lodged by father of the deceased stating that her daughter was married in the year 2015 with Sushil and immediately thereafter, there was constant demand of dowry by the family members of husband who harassed her and finally in the night of 12.5.2016 they assaulted the deceased and she was injured and and was shifted to C.H.C., Gosainganj and subsequently to Civil Hospital, Lucknow where till filing of the F.I.R. she was admitted but subsequently she died on 13.5.2016. In the post mortem report it has been concluded that there were superficial to deep burn injuries all over the body and only small portion of lower party of the body remained intact. It is submitted that during the investigation sufficient material was found against the accused persons and subsequently charge sheet was filed and the trial has commended and is under way. During the trial P.W.1 has been examined and her statement is annexed along with the application where she has supported the prosecution version. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a perusal of the first information report as well as the statements which have come during investigation and finally even during trial there are general allegations against the applicant and no specific role has been ascribed in respect to causing injuries.
4. It has been submitted that the applicant is mother-in-law and is aged about 66 years and is languishing in jail since 17.1.2017 and, thus, has spent nearly four years in jail. It is contended that the there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing away from judicial custody or influencing the witnesses.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 and has submitted that these facts have also been taken cognizance by the Apex Court whereby the Court stated that there are large number of false and frivolous cases lodged against the entire family members of the husband and submitted that there are general allegations against the applicants and therefore giving benefit of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) the applicant is liable to be released on bail.
6. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the facts as argued by the counsel for the applicant.
7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the fact that no specific role has been ascribed to the applicant coupled with the fact that she is languishing in jail for last four years; that she is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. and also the verdict of Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and also looking to the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering 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.
8. Let the applicant, Ram Rati, involved in case crime No.225 of 2016, under Sections- 498A, 304 B, 326 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Gosainganj, District Lucknow be released on bail on her 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 would 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 him 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 CrPC. 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.
9. It is provided that none of the observations made above shall be considered by the trial court and the trial shall proceed on its own merits.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
