Allahabad High Court
Pushpa Devi And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:79651
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3935 of 2024
Applicant :- Pushpa Devi And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Singh Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhilesh Srivastava,G.A.,Sajiya Parveen
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in the Court, the same is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Akhilesh Srivastava and Ms. Sajiya Parveen, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the record.
3. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.73 of 2002, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Pisawa, District- Aligarh.
4. As per FIR, marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with Devendra three years ago and at that time he has given sufficient dowry. It is alleged that applicants were not happy with the dowry and they started demanding additional dowry of Rs.1/- lac and one motor cycle, thereafter, started committing maar peet. It is alleged that on 15.6.2002 applicant no.2- Ram Singh inform the informant that his daughter got burned while cooking food and her treatment is going on at Medical College, Aligarh and on 25.6.2002 she died during treatment.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant no1. is Nanad, applicant nos.2 & 3 are father-in-law (Chachiya Sasur), applicant no.4 is Mamiya Sasur). The applicants have no concern with the alleged incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. He submits that the alleged incident took place on 15.6.2002 whereas FIR was lodged on 6.8.2002 through an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 31.7.2002. He submits that during investigation, Investigating Officer did not found any credible evidence and submitted charge sheet on 25.8.2002, thereafter, on 28.11.2003, a protest petition was filed before the court below which was allowed and the applicants were summoned. Thereafter, against the summoning order, the applicants before this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 11121 of 2005 and Application U/S 482 No. 9071 of 2005 wherein vide order dated 16.8.2005 proceedings of the trial court were stayed and on 27.11.2019 the same was dismissed. Thereafter, after dismissal of the aforesaid application, the applicants were summoned on 18.8.2022. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of this Court towards the Annexure No.5 to the affidavit wherein father of the deceased has stated that her daughter was burned by gas. There is no one to blame and he did not want any proceeding against any person, the said statement is also part of case diary. Learned counsel for the applicants has further drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of the deceased which was given before the doctor before her death where she has stated that she was burned while cooking food on gas. He further submits that cause of death is septicemia. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have not supported the prosecution story and during trial, they have become hostile. Applicants have no criminal history.
6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
7. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they are 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.
8. In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants- Pushpa Devi, Babulal, Rampal Singh and Satish Chand involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail 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:-
(1) The applicants 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.
(2) The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
(3) The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(4) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(5) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants.
(6) In case, the applicants 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.
(7) The applicants 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 their bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.
9. 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.
10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 3.5.2024
Krishna*
