Allahabad High Court

Vineeta vs State Of U.P. on 18 May, 2023

Author:
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench:
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:108418

Court No. - 76

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11926 of 2023

Applicant :- Vineeta

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Narayan Tripathi,Arvind Kumar Sahu,Vindeshwari Prasad

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Kant Mishra,Vivek Shukla

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Krishna Kant Mishra, learned counsel for informant and Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned A.G.A.-I for State.

Applicant- Vineeta, has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application under
Section 439
Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No.499 of 2022 under
Sections 498A
,
304B
I.P.C. and
Section 3
/
of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Bhamora, District - Bareilly after rejection of her Bail Application vide order dated 28.02.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Bareilly.

In the present case, a young bride has not able to enjoy even seven months of her married life and she died otherwise than under normal circumstances. According to post-mortem report, immediate cause of death was 'Asphyxia' due to ante-mortem hanging.

Learned counsel for applicant submits that F.I.R. was lodged against four named accused persons including applicant who is related to deceased as her 'Nanad'. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed only against three named accused persons (husband of deceased, father-in-law and present applicant being 'Nanad' of deceased) and the other 'Nanad' Anita has been exonerated.

Learned counsel further submits that applicant is a student of B.Sc.- III year and she was not involved in any crime even the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation have made general allegations which appears to be omnibus for all the accused persons. There is no specific allegation against applicant except that all accused persons have demanded dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/- and used to harass her for it.

Learned counsel fairly submits that bail application of co-accused Ramniwas i.e. father-in-law of deceased has already been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:102890) by an order dated 12.05.2023.

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is behind the bars since 23.12.2022 and in case, she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

Learned A.G.A. for State and learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail and submit that act of committing offence in regard to demand of dowry within a period of seven months will fall within the scope of dowry death and there are consistent evidence against applicant and other co-accused, however, it is not dispute that one of named co-accused has been exonerated. Learned counsel for informant has also pointed out that there are certain 'WhatsApp' chat on record which prima facie indicates that victim was harassed by in-laws and there are specific allegation against applicant and applicant who is 'Nanad' of deceased has also actively participated in harassment and cruelty in regard to demand of dowry on deceased.

LAW ON BAIL - A SUMMARY

(A) The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail.

(B) Power to grant bail under
Section 439
Cr.P.C., is of wide amplitude but not an unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course or in whimsical manner.

(C) While passing an order on an application for grant of bail, there is no need to record elaborate details to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal. However, a Court cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as allegations made against accused; nature and gravity of accusation; having common object or intention; severity of punishment if allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced by accused; tampering of evidence; character, behaviour, means, position and standing of accused; likelihood of offence being repeated; the frivolity in the case of prosecution; criminal antecedents of accused and a prima facie satisfaction of Court in support of charge against accused. The Court may also take note of participation or part of an unlawful assembly as well as that circumstantial evidence not being a ground to grant bail, if the evidence/ material collected establishes prima facie a complete chain of events. Parity may not be an only ground but remains a relevant factor for consideration of application for bail.

(D) Over crowding of jail and gross delay in disposal of cases when undertrials are forced to remain in jail (not due to their fault) may give rise to possible situations that may justify invocation of
Article 21
of Constitution, may also be considered along with other factors.

(See,
State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs. Balchand @ Baliay
(AIR 1977 SC 2447 : 1978 SCR (1) 535;
Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration
), (1978) 1 SCC 118); State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21;
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr
(2010)14 SCC 496;
Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar
, (2020) 2 SCC 118;
Ishwarji Mali vs. State of Gujarat and another
, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55;
Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others
, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89;
Ashim vs. National Investigation Agency
(2022) 1 SCC 695;
Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr
:2022 SCC OnLine SC 458;
Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.
(2022)3 SCC 501; and,
Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr.
(2022)8 SCC 559)

In the present case, from the facts and submissions
referred above
, it transpires that young bride has not able to survive her married life for even seven months. The cause of death has been opined to be 'Asphyxia' due to ante-mortem hanging. Bail application of co-accused Ramniwas (father-in-law of deceased) has already been rejected by co-ordinate Bench, still there is a substance in the argument of learned counsel for applicant that present applicant is a student who is in jail since 23.12.2021 as well as that the nature of allegations appears to be omnibus and similar to all the accused persons.

There is no specific allegation against applicant and on the basis of similar evidence one of co-accused has been exonerated, therefore, applicant may also entitle for benefit of proviso to
Section 437
Cr.P.C. and, therefore, she has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail is granted.

Let the applicant- Vineeta be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment or exemption from appearance on the date fixed in trial. 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.

(iii) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure 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 her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

(iv) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months after release of applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

The bail application is allowed.

It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.

Order Date :- 18.5.2023

P. Pandey