Allahabad High Court
Farazana Begam vs State Of U.P. on 20 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35126 of 2022
Applicant :- Farazana Begam
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Mabood Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Tripathi,Santosh Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State, learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.70 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Nevadhiya, District Jaunpur.
3. Applicant is mother in law of the deceased and as per contents of first information report, deceased was married to her son three years prior to the date of incident but thereafter continuous demand for dowry was being made and upon its unfulfilment, first informant's daughter was done to death on 16.06.2022.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her. It is submitted that applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased aged about 63 years. Presumption against applicant is sought to be discharged with submission that the deceased was suffering from post-natal depression due to which she had marital discord with her husband which was the cause of suicide.As per postmortem report, the cause of death is due to Asphyxia as a result of Antemortem Hanging. Further contention is that the father-in-law of the deceased had sent information to the police in respect of said incident and on the said information, the local police arrived at the place of incident and in the presence of informant and his family members, local police had taken custody of the dead body. It is submitter that father-in aw, i.e. husband of applicant has already been admitted to bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide Bail Application No.39276 of 2022 on the same allegations. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.07.2022 having no previous criminal history and in case applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application but could not controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
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 that applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and although allegations of dowry demand have been levelled but there is no specific assertion against applicant. Presumption against applicant is sought to be discharged with submission that the deceased was suffering from post-natal depression to an extent that there was marital discord which was the cause of suicide. Postmortem report indicates only a single ligature mark around the neck without any other bodily injury. Co-accused Asfaq Ahmad, father-in aw has already been admitted to bail as indicated herein above. 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 Farazana Begam, 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 :- 20.12.2022
kvg/-
