Allahabad High Court
Smt. Dilruba vs State Of U.P. on 26 April, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41796 of 2020
Applicant :- Smt. Dilruba
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey,Amit Pathak,Anil Kumar Shukla,Ashish Kumar,Dheeraj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Syed Wajid Ali
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 252 of 2020, under Sections 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is next submitted that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. As per allegation made in the FIR, the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with co-accused Ikrar on 28.11.2016, according to Muslim rites and customs without taking any dowry. The FIR was lodged on 09.06.2020 on the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. given by real brother of the deceased. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortam strangulation and the viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. General allegation has been levelled against the applicant for demand of dowry and cruelty. He has next submitted that the trial court has recorded statements of two prosecution witnesses i.e P.W. 1 Mohd Bilar and P.W. 2 Harun. The applicant is a lady and suffering with old age ailments. Learned coeunsel for applicant lastly submits that applicant is in jail since 21.08.2020 having no criminal history and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but conceded that during trial two witnesses have been examined, applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and applicant is languishing in jail since 21.08.2020.
In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-
"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let applicant, Smt. Dilruba, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.
(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(4). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
Order Date :- 26.4.2023
v.k.updh.
