Masuda vs State Of U.P. Through The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 16625 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12865 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Masuda
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through The Principal Secretary Home Deptt., Civil Secretary, U.P. Government Lucknow
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Farooq Ayoob
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

Heard Sri Farooq Ayoob, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anuraj Shukla,learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 375/2022, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabanki.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the marriage of the son of the applicant and deceased was solemnized about six years prior to the date of the incident and the relation of the son of the applicant and deceased were cordial except some minor disputes which always arose between a husband and wife. The relation of the applicant with deceased was also cordial.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the deceased only with the intention to harass the applicant and other persons named in the F.I.R.. The allegation which was levlled in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated. No such demand of motorcycle and Rs. 50000/- cash as additional dowry has ever made by the applicant or ever made by the accused persons named in the F.I.R., even though It was further pointed out before this Court that apart from present case no prior application or case has been lodged against the applicant or his family members regarding demand of additional dowry and cash from the complainant or from the deceased.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is an old lady aged about 65 years and she was residing separately along with her husband and daughter, this fact has been stated in paragraph No. 12 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. He further submits that the deceased was mentally sick before the marriage and after the marriage. She was treated by her husband, but she could not recovered, therefore she was living under stress and under pressure and on the date of incident, she committed suicide by hanging herself in the roof of the room.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per the postmortem report of the deceased cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. It has also been submitted that except one ligature mark of size 34 cm x 1.5 cm all around the neck no other injury was found on the person of the deceased. In support of his argument that deceased committed suicide by hanging herself, the learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the extract of Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, wherein definition of hanging has been described. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the definition of hanging given in Modi's Jurisprudence and the postmortem report of the deceased are identical, it appears a case of committing suicide by hanging and not the murder or strangulation.

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 and has submitted that these facts have also been taken cognizance by the Apex Court whereby the Court stated that there are large number of false and frivolous cases lodged against the entire family members of the husband and submitted that there are general allegations against the applicants and therefore giving benefit of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) the applicant is liable to be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the family members of the applicant including husband of the deceased and the applicant had tried their best to save the life of the deceased. He further submits that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and that there is no direct allegation against her regarding cruelty, torture or demand of dowry and general role has been assigned to all the accused persons in the F.I.R. and the applicant is not beneficiary of alleged demand of dowry.

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history, which has been explained in para 24 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and the applicant is in jail since 30.09.2022 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration, therefore, the bail application of the applicant may also be considered by this Court sympathetically and he should also be released on bail.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the deceased died within seven years of marriage and applicant is equally responsible for the affairs of the said incident, therefore, her bail application may be rejected.

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that the general allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled against all the accused including the applicant and the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and is not the beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry; the applicant is an old lady aged about 65 years and she was residing separately along with her husband and daughter; as per the postmortem report of the deceased cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. It has also been submitted that except one ligature mark of size 34 cm x 1.5 cm all around the neck no other injury was found on the person of the deceased; there appears force in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant that since the definition of hanging given in Modi's Jurisprudence and the postmortem report of the deceased are identical, it appears a case of committing suicide by hanging and not the murder or strangulation and also considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Masuda involved in Case Crime No. 375/2022, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabanki be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

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

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure his 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(6) The applicant shall remain present, 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 him in accordance with law.

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(8) 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.

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

Order Date :- 11.11.2022/Arvind