Allahabad High Court
Smt. Malti Devi vs State Of U.P. on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46946 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Malti Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sengar
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. 278 of 2020, u/s 306 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kuthond, District Jalaun.
3.Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased/Vishwajeet Singh. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the deceased committed suicide and died as the deceased was not happy with his wife as she used to chat with the Jitendra [email protected] and other family members. The same is not in any manner an act against the applicant as different persons react differently in different situation. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that there is no abetment and instigation of any kind by the applicant which has any nexus with the death of the deceased, the applicant has no mens-rea at all, there is no overt act whatsoever of the applicant, which resulted in the death of the deceased. The applicant has no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence. It is argued that co-accused Jitendra [email protected] and Smt. [email protected] have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13145 of 2021 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13227 of 2021 respectively. Further co-accused Vikram [email protected] Singh and Smt. Raunak have also been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20937 of 2021 while co-accused Udayveer Singh has been admitted to bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5285 of 2022. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history and is in jail since 01.09.2022.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but could not dispute the arguments as aforesaid.
5. 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."
6. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. Co-accused Jitendra [email protected], Smt. [email protected], Vikram [email protected] Singh, Smt. Raunak and Udayeer Singh have been granted bail.
7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Smt. Malti 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 :- 20.10.2022
kvg/-
