Allahabad High Court
Smt. Kaushlya Devi vs State Of U.P. on 22 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27793 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Kaushlya Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kumar,Dharmendra Singh,Rachna Tiwari,Santosh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nand Kishor Mishra,Shilpa Ahuja,Subhash Chandra Yadava
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant is taken on record.
1A. 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.150 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat.
3. Applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and as per contents of first information report, marriage between her son and deceased is said to have taken place on 25.11.2016 whereafter allegedly continuous demands for dowry were being made and upon its unfulfilment, was instrumental in murdering the deceased on 28.02.2022.
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 there was no occasion for causing dowry death after almost six years of marriage. It is further submitted that allegations of torturing deceased prior to her death by hanging are not corroborated by postmortem report which indicates only an interrupted ligature mark around neck with two contusions on her body on left side of face andone leg. It is submitted that aforesaid contusions can easily be explained as having occurred while taking down the body. Supplementary affidavit has been adverted to with submissions that documents annexed thereto indicates separate living of applicant while husband of deceased is already under incarceration. Applicant is in jail since 03.03.2022 with charge sheet having been filed. Benefit of provisions of Section 437 Cr.P.C. is also being claimed.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with submission that applicant being mother-in-law of the deceased and her death having occasioned unnaturally within prescribed period presumption is upon her to discharge. .
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 although allegations of dowry harassment has been alleged against applicant but it is noticeable that marriage had taken place six years prior to the incident. Documents filed to corroborate the submission of separate living of applicant are also on record. Postmortem report does not indicate any grievous injury being suffered by the deceased with an interrupted ligature mark around neck. Applicant is in jail since 03.03.2022 with only charge sheet having been filed. Husband of deceased is already under incarceration. 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 Smt. Kaushlya 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 :- 22.12.2022
kvg/-
