Smt. Shivrani vs State Of U.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 6193 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- BAIL No. - 7492 of 2020
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Shivrani
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- O.P. Tiwari,Rajendra Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
[In Residence]
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.

The case is called out through video conferencing.

Learned counsel Sri O.P. Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of the accused-applicant-Smt. Shivrani and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri Suresh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the State are connected through video conferencing in virtual hearing of the case.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the accused-applicant-Smt. Shivrani, involved in FIR/Case Crime No. 0062 of 2020, under Sections 304, 328, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Bighapur, District Unnao.

The occasion of present bail application has arisen on rejection of the bail plea of the accused-applicant by learned Additional Sessions Judge, court no. 3, Unnao vide order dated 29.06.2020.

Counter and rejoinder affidavits alongwith one supplementary affidavit filed by the State are on record.

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record.

It is argued by learned counsel for the bail-applicant that on 11.03.2020, father of the deceased-Sunil Kumar Verma informed the concerned police that on 11.03.2020 at 6:30 p.m. in the evening, his son, the deceased-Sunil Kumar Verma was called upon by the accused-applicant's family members the co-accused persons namely Shiv Prasad, Shiv Bahadur and Manoj. They taken him to their home as the date of incident was a festive day of 'Holi'. The deceased was beaten by the aforesaid accused persons by fists and stick. It is reported by the wife of the deceased that while she was searching her husband in the night on the date of incident and reached near the house of the co-accused persons, she found her husband-deceased being beaten by all the accused persons. On the date of incident i.e. 11.03.2020, her husband-the deceased fell ill and was taken to hospital, wherein he was declared dead by the doctors.

Learned counsel further submitted that the statements of eye witnesses allegedly show the present accused-applicant-Shivrani inflicted blow of hammer on the shoulder of the deceased. Learned counsel drew attention of the Court towards inquest report prepared after the information of death given by the deceased's wife to the police show no external bodily injury on the person of dead body. The anti-mortem injury reported by the doctor who did postmortem examination has not assigned any injury, the immediate cause of death, therefore viscera was preserved for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory.

Learned counsel further drew attention of the Court towards the fact that the Forensic Science Laboratory has submitted report after chemical examination of viscera to the effect that it contained pesticide. In the context of aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the bail-applicant submitted that Shivrani, the present accused-applicant is not assigned with any role, even by the first informant, the wife of the deceased, namely, Sangeeta nor by the father of the deceased, while lodging the FIR of the incident.

He further argued that the possibility as to cause of death as disclosed from the viscera report, submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory, due to denatured and contaminated liquor (alcohol) mixed with pesticide and nothing more because neither in the inquest report nor in the post-mortem report, the cause of death is reported due to any bodily injury caused by the present accused-applicant.

Learned counsel further submitted that the present accused-applicant is a lady. She is not assigned with any arm wielded on the body of the deceased. Moreover, the role to administer the denatured liquor or poisonous substance in the liquor to the deceased is also not assigned to her, as such present accused-applicant is falsely implicated in vengeance by the father of the deceased.

Learned counsel submitted that since the present accused-applicant is a lady, housewife, resident of the same locality and a common citizen, therefore, not in a position to flee away from the judicial process of the Court. She is willing and ready to ensure her attendance as and when required. She is ready to furnish bail bonds and sureties bonds as ordered by the Court.

Learned AGA opposing the bail prayer argued that the un-controverted statement of the deceased's wife is to the effect that the present accused-applicant alongwith the family members, the co-accused persons, have lastly seen with the deceased. They called the deceased in the night of 11.03.2020 and thereafter he was found in the alleged incident of beating, even the present accused-applicant was also seen alongwith other co-accused. So far as the death of deceased is concerned, it is in the report by Forensic Science Laboratory that by administering the nature liquor and the deceased was lastly seen alongwith all the accused persons, as such cause of death relates to the act of the accused-applicant and she is not entitled to grant of bail.

On hearing both the parties and looking into the facts and circumstances emerging out from the hearing of the parties, this is very much obvious on the record that the present accused-applicant has bot been assigned any role of doing any act which directly caused the death of the deceased, as reported by the doctors during autopsy of the deceased and in the post-mortem report it is also reported that death is not caused by the anti-mortem injuries and due to uncertainty the viscera was preserved which ultimately disclosed that death is caused by alcohol which contained insecticide.

Keeping into mind the valuable right of personal liberty and the fundamental principle not to disbelieve a person to be innocent unless held guilty and if he is not arraigned with the charge of an offence for which the law has put on him a reverse burden of proving his innocence as, held in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in [(2018) 3 SCC 22], I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the bail-applicant to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.

On the basis of aoforesaid facts, considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, without making any comments as to the role as well as merit of the case against the present accused-applicant and considering the nature of accusation, complicity of the accused-applicant, gravity of the offence and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the period for which she is in jail, I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the accused-applicant. The accused-applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

Let applicant-Smt. Shivrani be released on bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 0062 of 2020, under Sections 304, 328, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Bighapur, District Unnao, on her furnishing a personal bond worth Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) and two reliable sureties of the like amount by two different sureties 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 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.

(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 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 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 :- 14.6.2021

kkv/