Allahabad High Court
Smt. Maya vs State Of U.P. on 14 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28637 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Maya
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Prakash Tiwari
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court by learned counsel for applicant is taken on record.
1A. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.128 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali Mahoha, District Mahoba.
3. Applicant is mother-in-law of deceased and as per contents of FIR, marriage between the applicant's son and daughter of first informant had taken place on 30.05.2021 whereafter continuous demand for dowry was being made and upon its unfulfillment, the first informant's daughter was allegedly murdered on 25.03.2022.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her only on account of the fact that she is mother-in-law of deceased. Applicant is a lady of advanced age. It is submitted that although postmortem report indicates various injuries on the body of deceased but death has occasioned due to ante mortem hanging and the injuries suffered are sought to be explained as having occurred during the taking down of body. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the copy of ration card to submit separate living of the applicant from the deceased and her husband. It is submitted that during course of trial, the witnesses of fact as P.W.1, 2 and 3 did not support the prosecution version and were therefore declared hostile as per certified copies of depositions brought on record. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 29.03.2022 with evidence of only three prosecution witnesses having been completed although as per charges there are a total of 43 prosecution witnesses and as such there is no hope of early conclusion of trial.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the fact situation.
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
7. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that although allegations of dowry harassment and subsequent murdering of daughter of first informant have been indicated in the FIR but separate living of applicant is sought to be corroborated by the copy of ration card brought on record, which however is subject to evidence during trial. It also appears from certified copies of deposition that the witnesses of fact as P.W. 1, 2 and 3 have not supported the prosecution version and were declared hostile. It also appears that there are still 40 prosecution witnesses left to be examined although applicant is in jail since 29.03.2022.
8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant, Smt. Maya, involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 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 :- 14.12.2022
Subodh/-
