Smt. Rampayari vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 410 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 72
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43580 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Rampayari
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Naziya Siddiqui,Mohd Raghib Ali,Suhas Subhash Mehta
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Dixit
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Sri Sageer Ahmad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mohd Raghib Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Smt. Rampyari under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 336 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 304B & 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Banda during pendency of the trial after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by the Special Judge, Banda vide order dated 17.8.2021.

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 5.6.2021 has been lodged by father of the deceased against the applicant and ten other relatives of the applicant stating that marriage of his daughter Priyanka was solemnized with co-accused Virendra on 9.2.2019. At the time of marriage, a dispute with regard to additional demand of dowry of two carrot gold chain took place. But, after conciliation by the Panchayat, the daughter of first informant was sent to her matrimonial house. After that the applicant and other co-accused started hurling abuses and harassment and cruelty with regard to additional demand of dowry of two carrot gold chain to the deceased. The deceased told about this fact to her father. In December, 2019, the dispute was reached to Mahila Police Station. On July, 2020, one child was born out of this wedlock. After that the applicant and other co-accused demanded additional demand of dowry of Rs. 4 lacks and one air-conditioner from the deceased. On 3.6.2021 at about 10 P.M., the first informant was informed that applicant and other co-accused persons committed murder of his daughter. As a result whereof, the first informant reached at the spot and found that dead body of his daughter was hanged with ceiling fan.

Before lodging of the first information report, inquest of the body of the deceased has been conducted on 4.6.2021 at 3:20 P.M. As per inquest report, except ligature mark, some abrasion and contusion were found on the person of the deceased. Post-mortem of the body of the deceased has also been conducted on 4.6.2021 at 6:30 P.M. As per post-mortem report, except ligature mark, no external injury has been found on the person of the deceased. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, charge-sheet has been submitted against applicant and co-accused Chandra Pal (father-in-law of the deceased), Virendra (husband of the deceased) and Arvind (brother-in-law of the deceased) and the Investigating Officer has exonerated seven other co-accused. The applicant surrendered on 15.7.2021.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive as well as matrimonial dispute. It is further submitted the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased aged about 60 years old. It is further submitted that as per post-mortem report conducted in presence of two doctors namely Dr. Shiv Kumar Maurya and Dr. Ram Lola Rakh except ligature mark, no other external injury has been found on the person of the deceased. It is further submitted that in pursuance of compromise dated 11.12.2019, son of the applicant and the deceased were living separately from the applicant. It is further submitted that the FIR of the present case has been lodged on the basis of false and frivolous allegations and the applicant has falsely been roped in the present case. Only general role of harassment and demand of dowry has been levelled against the applicant. No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the present applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.7.2021 having no criminal history. It is lastly submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for first informant have supported the order passed by the Sessions Court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and they further submit that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. They further submit that as per inquest report, several injuries i.e. swelling on face, bleeding form of nose, contusion on back were found on the person of the deceased. But, they could not point out any material to the contrary. They further submit that in case the applicant is released on bail, she will misuse the liberty of bail.

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

(a) Applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased;

(b) As per post-mortem report, which is conducted in presence of two doctors namely Dr. Shiv Kumar Maurya and Dr. Ram Lola Rakh, except ligature mark, no other external injury was found on the person of the deceased;

(c) General allegation of harassment and demand of dowry has been levelled against the applicant;

(d) No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the present applicant;

(c) During course of investigation, seven other co-accused/ relatives of the applicant have been exonerated by the Investigating Officer;

It is settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, her role and involvement in the offence, her involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

Let applicant, Smt. Rampyari be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) 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 the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel.

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient case, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance of law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

Order Date :- 4.4.2022

CS/-