Munni Devi vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 23354 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172452
 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35041 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Munni Devi
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Sawhney,Raju Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Sawhney, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Munni Devi, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 246 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kiratpur, District-Bijnor during the pendency of trial.

4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 02.05.2023, a delayed FIR dated 05.06.2023 was lodged by first informant-Patram Singh (father of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No. 246 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kiratpur, District-Bijnor. In the aforesaid FIR, 4 persons namely - (1) Naresh Kumar, (2) Vipin Kumar, (3) Ajay and (4) Munni Devi been nominated as named accused.

5. Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused inasmuch as, the charge sheet has been submitted against applicant and 3 other named accused on 30.06.2023 yet applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. The other 2 charge sheeted accused namely Naresh Kumar and Vipin Kumar have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. The details of the same are as under:-

(i). Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34088 of 2023 (Naresh Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 10.08.2023.

(ii). Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35042 of 2023 (Vipin Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 09.08.2023.

6. The case of present applicant is on better footing that named/charge sheeted but bailed out co-accused. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which, the case of present applicant could be so distinguished from aforementioned named/charge sheeted but bailed out co-accused so as to deny him bail. He, therefore, submits that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail order of co-accused, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

7. It is next contended by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Attention of the Court was then invited to the provisions contained in proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. and on basis thereof, it is urged that since the applicant is a lady, therefore, she is liable to be enlarged on bail.

8. Even otherwise, applicant is a woman of clean antecedents inasmuch as, she has no criminal history to her credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 10.06.2023. As such, she has undergone more than 2 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. Applicant cannot be said to be the beneficiary of the alleged demand of additional dowry. The husband of the deceased i.e. the son of the applicant is already languishing in jail. There is delay of 30 days in lodging the FIR. The delay in lodging the FIR has not been sufficiently explained. With reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Rajagopal And Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2019(5) SCC 403 (paragraph 8), the learned counsel for applicant contends that since the delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained, the prosecution of the applicant itself cannot be maintained. The body of the deceased was cremated in the presence of the family members of the deceased. This fact is clearly evident from the statement of the witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. namely - Gyan Singh, Nikhil, Updesh, Rampal Singh, Nakul, Sukhdev Singh and Others. On the above premise, he submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

10. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made and complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that applicant is a lady, therefore, she is entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C., the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial nor could the learned A.G.A. distinguish the case of present applicant from other named/charge sheeted but bailed out co-acused so as to deny bail to the present applicant, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Rajagopal (Supra), but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant-Munni Devi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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 HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/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 HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

13. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

Order Date :- 25.8.2023

Vinay