Allahabad High Court
Smt Gyanti Devi vs State Of U.P. on 9 November, 2022
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22034 of 2020 Applicant :- Smt Gyanti Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Mahesh Prasad Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Mahesh Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This is the second bail application filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge her on bail in Case Crime No.20 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 306 I.P.C., Police Station-Meh Nagar, District-Azamgarh, during the pendency of the trial.
The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 29.01.2019, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3882 of 2019 (Smt. Gyanti Devi Vs. State of U.P.), a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit accompanying the present application. The operative portion of the aforesaid order dated 29.01.2019 is as follows:-
"Considered the rival submissions and perused the material brought on record. No good ground is made out for bail.
Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected, at this stage. "
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased, who has committed suicide after more than seven years of her marriage. He further submits that applicant is 65 years old lady and and has been detained in jail for more than four years. The applicant's husband has been released on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 26.07.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.25920 of 2020, as he was suffering from Tuberculosis (TB). He further submits that there is no one else to look after applicant's husband, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. He further submits that in the trial Court only statements of PW-1 and PW-2 have been recorded till date. He further submits that trial is progressing at a slow pace and has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case Indrani Pratim Mukerjea versus Central Bureau of Investigation and Another passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1627 of 2022 to submit that prolonged incarceration of a person as an under trial is against his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
He further submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 23.08.2018. It is submitted that there is no occasion now for the applicant to tamper with any witness or to flee from judicial process. The applicant does not have any previous criminal history. In case, she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, she does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant-Smt Gyanti Devi involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when 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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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 absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 9.11.2022 Rahul.