Allahabad High Court
Uma Devi vs State Of U.P. on 17 March, 2021
Bench: Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- BAIL No. - 3306 of 2021
Applicant :- Uma Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Singh Sikarwar,Kuldeep Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
The case is called out.
Heard learned counsel for the bail-applicant, Sri Gyanendra Singh Sikarwar, Advocate, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Sachchidanand, Advocate and perused the record.
The present bail application is filed on behalf of accused-applicant- Uma Devi, who is involved in Case Crime No.488 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station- Beniganj, District- Hardoi.
The occasion of the present bail application has arisen on rejection of bail plea of accused-applicant by learned Session Judge, Hardoi vide order dated 28.1.2021. A copy of bail application has already been received in the office of learned G.A., pursuant thereto, learned A.G.A. for the State is present to protest the bail-application as received the instructions from the department.
Learned counsel for the bail applicant reading over the F.I.R. and material papers prepared by the police like post-mortem report submitted that the present accused-applicant has no concern with the death of the deceased, who was wife of her adopted son namely Anil Kumar Goswami. Learned counsel submitted that the accused-applicant, Uma Devi and her husband are issueless, as such, they adopted the son of sister of Uma Devi.
Learned counsel further submitted that neither in the inquest report nor in the post-mortem report there is any anti-mortem injury on the person of the dead body of the deceased. So far as the post-mortem report is concern, any apparent mark for suggesting the cause of death is not found, therefore, visra is preserved and sent for further examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which is still awaited.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that there is no cruelty either mentally or physically exerted upon the deceased when she was alive or living in the house of the accused-applicant. So far as the demand of dowry is concern, specifically the demand for purchasing an auto rickshaw is assigned to the husband of the deceased, therefore, the case of deceased's husband, Anil Kumar Gosami is distinguishable than that of the present accused-applicant-Uma Devi, she is a lady of aged above 50 years.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to participate in the trial she is not in a position to flee away from the process of the court, she is a local resident, is ready and willing to face the trial and will abide herself to the conditions imposed on her for grant of bail and if enlarged on bail, will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand protested the bail application on the ground that the deceased died unnaturally in the house of the accused-applicant, where the matrimonial home of the deceased alongwith her husband is situated. So far as the demand of dowry is concern, the father of the deceased has himself alleged in the F.I.R. as to the demand of Rs. 20,000/- for purchase of Auto Rickshaw and earlier also to fulfill his desires, time to time he has spent money. So far as the cruelty soon before death of the deceased is concern, learned A.G.A. could not explained the same and has nothing even to deny the same of the present accused-applicant, no cruelty exerted at her end against the deceased.
Moreover, learned counsel for the applicant in rebuttal submitted that there is neither any dying declaration nor any external mark of injury on the body of the deceased, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the innocence of the present accused-applicant at this stage as all the conformity of Section 304-B is not stand fulfilled.
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 ors. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the bail-applicant to enlarge him on bail.
Let applicant (Uma Devi), who is involved inCase Crime No.488 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station- Beniganj, District- Hardoi be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 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 misuse 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 :- 17.3.2021
Gaurav/-
