Allahabad High Court
Swati vs State Of U.P. on 7 April, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55204 of 2022
Applicant :- Swati
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kant Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Shashi Kant Shukla, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA for State and Sri Shiv Nath Singh, Advocate for Informant.
2. Applicant-Swati has approached this Court by way of filing present bail application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0185 of 2022, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Sadh, District Kanpur Nagar, after rejection of his bail application vide order dated 09.11.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat).
3. Applicant is wife of deceased who had committed suicide at his father-in-law?s bagh. According to prosecution story, marriage of deceased and applicant was solemnized on 14.06.2020, however, applicant was staying at her parental house for last 4-5 months and for last twenty to twenty five days, the deceased was staying at her house where he committed suicide.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that co-accused, i.e., father of applicant/ father-in-law of deceased, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 32.03.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 54193 of 2022 (Dinesh Kushwaha vs. State of U.P.). He further submits that applicant?s husband died just about two years of their marriage. It is alleged that applicant was mostly staying at her parental house and before alleged occurrence her husband was staying in her house only for about 20-25 days, where deceased has suffered physical and mental atrocities which led him in a position that he committed suicide.
5. Learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance on Supreme Court?s judgment in Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1995 (Supp3) SCC 438 that from words exchanged in heat of moment between quarrelling people, nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter and such exchange of words may not be considered to be abetment of suicide. Learned counsel has referred Swamy Prahaladdas (supra) as Informant has stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that applicant was harassing her husband and she also stated that, ?Mar Jao Mejhe Tumhari Awasyakta Nahi Hai Jyada Sudharne Ki Baat Kahoge To Dahej Ka Mukadma Likhwa Dungi?.
6. Learned AGA for State and learned counsel appearing for Informant, submit that case of applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused, i.e., her father. There are specific evidence against applicant that she normally staying at her parental house and when her husband was with her for last about three weeks, not only she repeatedly fight with him but also stated specific words, as referred above, which are sufficient to indicate that she has committed an offence of abetment.
7. Law with regard to bail and abement has already been referred in bail order of Dinesh Kushwaha (supra), therefore, the same is not repeated here.
8. In the present case, undisputedly applicant is wife of deceased. There is evidence that she normally stayed at her parental house and deceased was also staying there for last about three weeks and committed suicide at their place. Nature of evidence collected during investigation prima facie indicates that applicant used to fight with her husband. It appears that she was not ready to go with him and does not respond to request of her husband. Father of deceased has specifically stated during investigation that applicant has said words to her husband, ?Mar Jao Mejhe Tumhari Awasyakta Nahi Hai Jyada Sudharne Ki Baat Kahoge To Dahej Ka Mukadma Likhwa Dungi?.
9. The only question remains is, whether prima facie said words may be cogent evidence that applicant has committed offence of abetment or not and its consideration for application of bail.
10. In this regard there are two factors which go in favour of applicant. Firstly, applicant is a lady and she may get benefit of proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. and secondly that she has narrated above referred words when applicant was staying at her matrimonial house and not at her parental house, i.e., 4-5 months prior to occurrence. Any comment on the evidence at this stage may adversely affect case of either side. Therefore, in my view, applicant can be given benefit of proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. and she is also entitled for bail.
11. However, applicant is directed to remain present on each and every date as and when required by Trial Court during trial and in case any application for exemption on vague ground is filed, the same shall be a ground for Trial Court to cancel bail immediately.
12. Let the applicant-Swati be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment or exemption from appearance on the date fixed in trial. 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.
(iii) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.
(iv) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months after release of applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.
13. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
14. The bail application is allowed.
15. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.
Order Date :- 7.4.2023
AK
