Allahabad High Court
Kalui @ Laxmi Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:92096
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4893 of 2024
Applicant :- Kalui @ Laxmi Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dibyanshu Kushwaha,Rajiv Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit has been filed today, is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
3. This anticipatory bail application (under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.295 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304 B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Tharwai, District Allahabad.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. The applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased aged about 70 years and suffering from several old disease. She is suffering from eye disease, copy of prescription has been annexed as Annexure No.SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. The marriage of her son was solemnized with the deceased in the year 2017. The applicant has never demanded for any dowry nor she committed any cruelty upon the deceased. He further submits that the deceased was suffering from lung infection and due to the infection she died. As per postmortem report, there is no injury found on the body of the deceased and since the cause of death could not be ascertained hence the viscera was preserved and as per FSL report, no poisonous substance has been found. He further submits that earlier the applicant has approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.13840 of 2018 in which interim protection was granted to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. Now the charge sheet has been submitted. He further submits that till date no NBW or proceeding under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has been initiated against the applicant. The applicant is having no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that even if the entire allegation made in the FIR may be accepted as true, no offence under Section 304 B IPC is made out against the applicant but the court below without appreciating all above aspect has wrongly taken cognizance against the applicant, therefore, committed manifest error of law. 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.
6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.
7. 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.
8. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Kalui @ Laxmi 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 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.
(ii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iii) The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
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 is disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.5.2024
Ajeet
