Allahabad High Court
Vimla vs State Of U.P. on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38052 of 2022
Applicant :- Vimla
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Misra
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. 211 of 2021 (S.T. No. 1437 of 2021), under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Chhatta, District Mathura.
3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant is the mother-in-law of deceased and is said to have participated in dowry harassment of the deceased, due to which the daughter-in-law passed away on 20th June, 2021.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her and only general allegations of dowry demand have been made without any specific assertion with regard to items demanded or even the date of demand of dowry. It is submitted that the marriage between applicant's son and the deceased had taken place on 16th February, 2020. It is submitted that neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statement of informant and other family members of deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. indicate any specific role of applicant in alleged mistreatment of the deceased. As such it is submitted that there is no direct evidence linking the applicant with the alleged crime although the applicant has in jail since 25th August, 2021 without trial having as yet commenced. It is further submitted that the applicant is a widowed lady.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that a perusal of the post mortem report clearly indicates 11 anti mortem injuries being suffered by the deceased and the cause of death is indicated as neurogenic shock as a result of anti mortem injury indicated at Sl. No.1. It is submitted that death has taken place within a period of two years from the marriage and has emphasized the statement of sister of deceased who was married the younger sister of deceased. Both the sisters were married to real brothers. It is submitted that sister has clearly corroborated the charge of dowry demand.
6. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, a reading of the F.I.R. and statement of informant with other witnesses appear to indicate primary role of one Jaipal in instigating the ill treatment of deceased. General allegations have been made on all members of family without any specific assertion regarding applicant's role in mistreatment and consequent death of the deceased. The applicant has alleged that she used to live separately from the deceased and her husband. Documents to substantiate the said claim have also been annexed but are subject to evidence. Although 11 anti mortem injuries have been indicated on the body of deceased but there is no allegation of applicant having inflicted any of them. Co-accused Manoj has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17626 of 2022. The applicant is a widowed lady and is under incarceration since 25th August, 2021 without trial having yet commenced.
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 Vimla involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his 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 he 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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 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.
(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 him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 13.9.2022
Prabhat
