Allahabad High Court
Rajbala @ Rajmala vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78463
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4430 of 2024
Applicant :- Rajbala @ Rajmala
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Pal Singh Jadaun,Vikram Shah Sisodia
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Session Trial No.1102 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.820 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 304 B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sahaswan, District Budaun.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. During investigation, the applicant was exonerated but during trial the applicant was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which was challenged by the applicant by filing Criminal Revision No.2938 of 2014 in which interim protection was granted but later on the same was dismissed vide order dated 08.09.2022. After dismissal of revision, the applicant has preferred an application to declare her as juvenile but the same was also dismissed, thereafter, the applicant has filed anticipatory bail application before the court below which was also rejected, hence, this anticipatory bail application. He further submits that the applicant is married sister-in-law (nanand) of the deceased Suman. Entire family members of the applicant have been implicated in the present case. At the time of alleged incident, the applicant was minor aged about 14 years. The applicant has never demanded for additional dowry nor applicant tortured the deceased. Only general allegation has been levelled against the applicant. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. As per postmortem report, no enteral and external injury found on the body of the deceased and cause of death has been mentioned as Asphyxia due to antimortem hanging.
4. He further submits that there is apprehension of imminent arrest of the applicant and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and has submitted that three accused persons have been convicted and trial of the applicant has been separated.
6. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, she is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
7. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Rajbala @ Rajmala, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.
(ii) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iv) The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(vii) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.
8. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
9. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, the court below is directed to conclude the trial of the aforesaid case, in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this Court without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. .
10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 2.5.2024
Ajeet
