Allahabad High Court
Smt. Neeta @ Lalita Kullar And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 February, 2020
Author: Rajiv Joshi
Bench: Rajiv Joshi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 54 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6983 of 2019 Appellant :- Smt. Neeta @ Lalita Kullar And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vikas Sharma,Amit Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Puneet Kumar Verma Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Counter affidavit as well as rejoinder affidavit filed today are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 3.10.2019 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Meerut in Bail Application No. 5172 of 2019 (Smt. Neet @ Lalita Kullar @ Anr. Vs. State) arising out of Case Crime No. 165 of 2019 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3 (2)(V) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, P.S. Ganga Nagar, District - Meerut whereby the bail application of the appellants were rejected.
As per allegation made in the first information report that the daughter of informant was murdered by her husband and family members including the real daughter-in-law of the first informant. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the incident alleged to have been taken place on 10.5.2019 and immediately thereafter, son of the appellant namely, Jatin,informed her in-laws about her death and while preparing the "punchnama", the informant was one of the witness of the inquest report.
It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant viscera was preserved and report has not been submitted during the investigation and therefore, cause of death could not be certain. He further submitted that there is no anti-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. Lastly, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are father-in-law and mother- in- law of the deceased and they are in jail since 4.8.2019 and having no criminal history to their credit. In case, appellants are released on bail they will not misuse the liberty of bail.
On the other hand, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for for the informant opposed the prayer for bail but could not contradict the submission so raised by learned counsel for the appellants.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion a case for bail has been made out. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.
Let the appellants namely Smt. Neeta @ Lalita Kullar and Neeraj Kullar involved in Case Crime No. 165 of 2019 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3 (2)(V) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, P.S. Ganga Nagar, District - Meerut be released on bail furnishing on their personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
1. The appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence are exempted.
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.
5. The appellants 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
6. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
Order Date :- 5.2.2020/Akbar