Allahabad High Court
Rabir Devi vs State Of U.P. on 12 September, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39245 of 2022
Applicant :- Rabri Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- K.K.Rao,Mukul Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arunesh Kumar Singh
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.331 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Nebua Naurangia, District Kushinagar.
3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant is mother in law of the deceased. Marriage between deceased and son of the applicant is said to have taken place on 02.05.2021 and it has been alleged that thereafter the applicant along with other family members started making dowry demands and upon unfulfillment of same, murdered the deceased on between 06/07.06.2021.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her merely because she is mother-in-law. It is submitted that there is no explanation for the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. being filed after about a month of the alleged incident. It is submitted that the inquest clearly indicates father and brother of deceased to be witnesses without any statement regarding dowry demand and further indicates that there is no injury seen on the body of deceased. The fact that deceased did not bear any injury on her is also corroborated by the post mortem. It is submitted that as per viscera report, death of deceased has occurred as a result of intake of aluminium phosphide. He has placed reliance upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Pal versus State of Haryana; Appeal (Criminal) No.705 of 2009 in which the submission of attending doctor has been recorded to the effect that aluminium phosphide cannot be administered in a deceitful manner since it emits a pungent smell. It is thus submitted that the only other method to administer the said is by force, which is not borne out from the post mortem report. It is submitted that even otherwise the ornaments etc brought by the deceased were returned to her family. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 08.06.2022 and as yet trial is in a nascent stage.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for complainant have opposed the bail application with the submission that death has occurred within a month of marriage and statements made in the FIR clearly indicate dowry demand being the reason for death of deceased. It is submitted that unnatural death has taken place within a month of marriage thereby raising presumption against the applicant.
6. Considering the submission advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it appears that the death of deceased has occasioned due to intake of aluminium phosphide. As per judgment indicated hereinabve, the same cannot be administered in a deceitful manner and at present the postmortem report does not indicate any injuries on the body of deceased. The applicant is in jail since 08.06.2022 and the trial does not appear to have started as yet.
7. 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."
8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant, Rabri 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 :- 12.9.2022
Subodh/-
