Allahabad High Court
Sunita Devi vs State Of U.P. on 3 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:79489
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4252 of 2024
Applicant :- Sunita Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mrityunjay Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Mr. Mrityunjay Dwivedi, 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 Case Crime No.335 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304 B, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chandaus, District Aligarh.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. The applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased aged about 50 years and she is suffering from blood cancer since 2021. The applicant was admitted in Max Hospital on 19.11.2023 and since then her treatment is going on at Max Hospital, which is clearly shown from the last prescription of her treatment issued by Max Hospital dated February, 2024. He further submits that the applicant has never demanded for any dowry nor she tortured the deceased. The deceased herself has consumed poison and during treatment when the doctor has asked the deceased has said that she has consumed poison rat killer. It is relevant to mention here that the deceased was admitted in the hospital by the her husband, who is also made an accused in the present case but he has been released on regular bail by the court below vide order dated 21.03.2024, copy of bail order has been annexed as Annexure No.11 to the affidavit filed in support of the application. He further submits that the applicant is having no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph 23 of the affidavit.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.
5. 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.
6. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Sunita Devi, 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.
7. 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.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.5.2024
Ajeet
