Allahabad High Court
Smt. Shusheela Devi vs State Of U.P. on 20 October, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 54 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6311 of 2020 Applicant :- Smt. Shusheela Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Binod Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukesh Kumar Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Binod Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 158 of 2019 under Sections 498A, 304B, 323, 302 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Dholna, District Kashganj, during the pendency of trial.
As per the F.I.R. which has been lodged by the father of the deceased, it is mentioned in it that his daughter was married to the co-accused Rahul Kumar on 16.12.2018 and thereafter he started making demand of four wheeler and when the same was not given, on being dissatisfied, in the evening of 10.08.2019, the deceased was done to death by the accused applicant along with other co-accused named in the F.I.R. by sprinkling kerosene upon her and setting her on fire. The post mortem report says that the cause of death of the deceased is septicaemia shock as a result of ante mortem burn injuries.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is innocent. It is further argued that in dying declaration of the deceased the role of sprinkling kerosene and setting her on fire by matchstick is assigned to the main accused Rahul Kumar, who is husband of the deceased, who is in jail. As regards the accused-applicant, who is mother-in-law, it is stated by him that in the dying declaration deceased has simply stated that she was responsible for this occurrence although no over act has been assigned to her. Applicant is innocent. She has no criminal history. She is in jail since 30.9.2019. If released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer of bail and have argued that applicant was elder person of the family, who could have avoided this occurrence therefore her bail should be rejected. He has further pointed out that some wrong observation has been made by this court in the bail order of the father-in-law.
Let the applicant Smt. Shusheela Devi involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a further period of one year from the date of production of a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and verified by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Order Date :- 20.10.2020 A.P. Pandey