Allahabad High Court
Sita Devi vs State Of U.P. on 16 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43915 of 2022
Applicant :- Sita Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Mohan,Harishchandra Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. 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.31 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Aunchha, District Mainpuri.
3. Applicant is mother in law and as per contents of F.I.R. marriage between her son and the deceased was performed on 29.06.2020 whereafter deceased was continuously harassed for dowry and upon its unfulfilment, was burned to death on 19.03.2022.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her only on account of fact that she is mother in law of the deceased. It is submitted that although as per postmortem report, death has taken place due to antemortem burning but the statements of mother and brother of deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. clearly admit separate living of applicant due to which also the names of co-accused except for husband of deceased have not been included in the charge sheet. It is submitted that only general allegations of dowry harassment have been alleged against applicant who is in custody since 21.04.2022 with only charge sheet having been filed.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that applicant being mother in law, presumption is also upon her to discharge the happening of the events.
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 the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears from a reading of F.I.R. that general allegations of dowry demand have been made against applicant and co-accused but mother and brother of the deceased in their statements have clearly admitted to separate living of the applicant. Husband of the deceased is already in custody and as yet only charge sheet has been filed in the matter. As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Sita Devi, 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 :- 16.12.2022
kvg/-
