Aklimunnisha @ Hakeekun vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 16659 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12922 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Aklimunnisha @ Hakeekun
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

Heard Shri Anil Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Diwakar Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The applicant, Aklimunnisha @ Hakeekun, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 121 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, 201 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khodare, District Gonda.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is Aunt (Bua) of the husband of the deceased and has no concern regarding affairs of the deceased and her husband or her in-laws. The applicant is living separately along with her family members in another village far away from the matrimonial house of the deceased. This fact has been stated in para-9 and 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. In support of his submission that applicant is living separately the learned counsel for the applicant has annexed copy of Aadhar Card and Parivar Register, which has been filed as Annexure Nos. 3 and 4 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant is an old woman aged about 62 years and she is living separately. Neither the applicant was present at the time of alleged incident nor she used to visit matrimonial house of the deceased regularly, she is busy in her own affairs of day to day along with her family members. The applicant has no concern with the alleged demand of additional dowry in the form of bullet motorcycle and two lakhs rupees and on account of non fulfillment thereof causing cruelty to the deceased by her husband or in-laws. False allegation has been made against the applicant in the first information report as she cannot be said to be beneficiary of the alleged demand of additional dowry, thus, the entire prosecution story as alleged in the F.I.R. against the applicant is false and frivolous and has been made only with intention to harass the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it is not the case of prosecution that applicant was also used to make demand of additional dowry or on account of non fulfillment thereof, or she was involved in causing cruelty to the deceased or she is involved in killing the deceased specifically, thus in absence of any specific demand of additional dowry made on the part of the applicant or any specific allegation for causing cruelty to the deceased or killing her, the applicant has been implicated falsely in the present case.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that incident took place on 28.07.2022, whereas, first information report has been lodged on 03.08.2022, i.e., after a great delay of more than five days, that too, without any proper and plausible explanation. It has further been argued that no one had seen that applicant had committed the alleged crime, nor there is any witness to support the prosecution case. Prior to the alleged first information no complaint was ever made by the deceased herself or by her family members against the applicant or any other accused persons named in the first information report regarding demand of additional dowry or causing cruelty to the deceased.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant being Bua of the husband of the deceased and being one of the family members, has been falsely implicated in the case. In support of his argument, 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 entitled to be enlarged on bail by this Court sympathetically.

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 she is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make herself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon her. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history, which fact has been explained in para-13 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 03.06.2022 and has already undergone a substantial period of detention, therefore, the bail application of the applicant may also be considered by this Court sympathetically and she should also be released on bail.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that applicant is Bua of the deceased and her role is identical with the role of other co-accused named in the F.I.R. in killing the deceased, therefore, her bail application 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 applicant is Aunt (Bua) of the husband of the deceased and has no concern regarding affairs of the deceased and her husband or her in-laws as she is living separately along with her family members in another village far away from the matrimonial house of the deceased, which fact has been stated in para-9 and 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application; being Bua of the husband of the deceased and living separately the applicant cannot be said to be beneficiary of the alleged demand of additional dowry; there appears force in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that it is not the case of prosecution that applicant was also used to make demand of additional dowry or on account of non fulfillment thereof, or she was involved in causing cruelty to the deceased or she is involved in killing the deceased specifically, thus in absence of any specific demand of additional dowry made on the part of the applicant or any specific allegation for causing cruelty to the deceased or killing her, the applicant has been implicated falsely in the present case; the incident took place on 28.07.2022, whereas, first information report has been lodged on 03.08.2022, i.e., after a great delay of more than five days, that too, without any proper and plausible explanation; no one had seen that applicant had committed the alleged crime, nor there is any witness to support the prosecution case; prior to the alleged first information no complaint was ever made by the deceased herself or by her family members against the applicant or any other accused persons named in the first information report regarding demand of additional dowry or causing cruelty to the deceased; further 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-Aklimunnisha @ Hakeekun, involved in Case Crime No. 121 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, 201 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khodare, District Gonda, be released on bail on her 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 her 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 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.

(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 her 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

Mustaqeem