Allahabad High Court
Smt Chandramukhi vs State Of U.P. on 14 September, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36980 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt Chandramukhi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Rai,Anjani Kumar Rai
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.47 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Bisanda, District Banda.
3. As per contents of first information report, the applicant who is mother-in-law of the deceased is said to have been instrumental in the death of her daughter in law which occurred on 09.02.2022 with marriage having taken place on 14.09.2021.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her only on account of the fact that she is the mother-in-law of the deceased although they had separate living from deceased and her husband. He has adverted to certain documents to corroborate the same. It is submitted that even as per the rejection order, it has been indicated that the room where the body was found had been locked from inside and had to be broken open by police. It is submitted that the deceased had committed suicide due to marital discord without any interference on part of the applicant. It is submitted that father-in-law of the deceased Rajendra Pandey has been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide Bail Application No.29016 of 2022. It is submitted that applicant is incarcerated since 18.07.2022 and she does not have any previous criminal history. It has been further submitted that even as per the postmortem report, there are no external injury marks on body of the deceased.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with submission that unnatural death of daughter in law has taken place within seven years of marriage. It is further submitted that the aspect of separate living is yet to be established by evidence.
6. 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."
7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that a general role of demand of dowry has been levelled against the in-laws including the present applicant, the post mortem report does not indicate any external injuries on body of the deceased and as per the rejection order passed by the Court below, it appears that the room where body was found had been locked from inside and had to be broken open by the police, the death as such could have occasioned as suicide due to marital discord, co-accused Rajendra Pandey, husband of the applicant has been enlarged on bail, as stated herein above, as such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case,this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Smt Chandramukhi, 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 :- 14.9.2022
kvg/-
