Allahabad High Court
Chanchal Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 4 April, 2022
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4303 of 2022 Applicant :- Chanchal Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dheeraj Kumar Singh Connected with Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7411 of 2022 Applicant :- Rakesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
This application for bail has been filed by applicants Chanchal Sharma and Rakesh Sharma, seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 972 of 2021, under sections 498A, 323, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Surajpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Perused the record.
It transpires from record that marriage of daughter of first informant was solemnized with Ritu Sharma on 19.2.2018, in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. However just after expiry of a period of little more than three years from the date of marriage an unfortunate incident occurred on 14.12.2021, in which the daughter-in-law of applicant Rakesh died as she committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. It is the case of applicant that the information regarding aforesaid incident was given by Mohit sharma husband of the victim to his in-laws. The victim was immediately rushed to Kailash Hospital, Greater Noida. However, the victim succumbed to the poisonous substance consumed by her on 14.12.2021.
Subsequent to above, first informant Dinesh Kumar sharma father of deceased lodged an F.I.R. dated 14.12.2021, which was registered as Case Crime No. 972 of 2021, under sections 498A, 323, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Surajpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R. four persons namely, Mohit (husband), Rakesh (father-in-law), Santosh (mohter-n-law) and Chanchal (Nand) have been nominated as named accused.
In brief, according to the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. it is alleged that marriage of Ritu Sharma daughter of first informant was solemnized with Mohit Sharma on 19.2.2018. At the time of marriage, sufficient amount of goods and dowry were given. F.I.R. further states that in the marriage of daughter of first informant, a Wagon-R was given in dowry but four wheeler Scorpio was demanded. However, as the demand of additional dowry was not fulfilled physical and mental cruelty was committed upon deceased.According to the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R., the deceased had disclosed aforesaid fact to the informant on 13.12.2021. Ultimately, the daughter of first informant was put to death.
Subsequent to aforesaid F.I.R. inquest (panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted on 14.12.2021 on the information of constable Rajpal Singh. In the opinion of witnesses of inquest (panch witnesses) the nature of death of deceased was characterized as suicidal. Thereafter, the post mortem of the body of deceased was conducted on the next day. In the opinion of autopsy surgeon, cause of death of deceased could not be ascertained and therefore the viscera was preserved. Same was send to Forensic Science Loboratory (F.S.L.) for chemical examination. However, autopsy surgeon did not find any internal or external ante mortem injury on the body of deceased. Matter is under investigation. Upto this stage two of the witnesses namely, Dinesh Kumar Sharma and Vikas Sharma have been examined.
At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submits that mother-in-law of deceased Santosh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.2.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4274 of 2022. For ready reference, same is reproduced herein under;
Heard Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Dheeraj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
By means of the present bail application the applicant, who is facing prosecution in connection with Case Crime No.972 of 2021, u/s 498A, 323, 304-B I.P.C. and Section of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.-Surajpur, District-Gautam Budh Nagar, is seeking his enlargement on bail during trial. The applicant is in jail since 22.12.2021.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per prevailing practice in the society now-a-days, entire family members of Mohit, the husband, has been roped in, in this unfortunate incident. F.I.R. is dated 14.12.2021 with the allegation that for want of a new Scorpio car as additional dowry, the daughter of the informant was subject matter of constant torture, harassment and misbehaviour. Frustrated and perturbed by this, the deceased consumed poisonous substance and committed suicide. There is no mark of any external injury over the person of the deceased.
Since there is a demand of Scorpio car only, and as such, the husband could be said to be the best beneficiary of this additional dowry, but the applicant who is mother-in-law, aged about 61+ years, cannot be said to be a beneficiary of a Scorpio car. The applicant is in jail since 22.12.2021, having no criminal antecedents.
Learned counsel for the complainant as well as A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail by making a mention that the deceased died within four years of marriage and she has been constant target of harassment for additional dowry, for that the entire family of the husband is liable for this unfortunate incident.
Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Santosh, who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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 HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(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., 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 IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:
1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.
2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
4. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicants contends that case of present applicants is similar and identical to co-accused Santosh. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicants can be distinguished from aforesaid co-accused. She, therefore, contends that for the facts and reasons mentioned in the order dated 14.2.2022, applicants are also liable to be enlarged on bail.
Leaned counsel for applicants then contends that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. Allegations made in F.I.R. with regard to demand of additional dowry and commission of physical and mental cruelty on account of non fulfilment of additional demand of dowry are false and concocted. As such, applicants are being falsely prosecuted. It is then submitted that that applicant chanchal Shamra is unmarried sister in law of deceased. She has invited the attention of the Court to the proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. and on basis thereof she contends that since applicant Chanchal Sharma is a lady she is liable to be enlarged on bail. It is then contended that matter is still under investigation. However, till date, no Police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has been submitted against applicants. Up to this stage, there is no evidence to show that the applicants have even abetted in the commission of the alleged crime. The bonafide of applicants is established from the fact that no external or internal ante-mortem injury was found on the body of deceased. The death of deceased was a suicidal death. It is lastly contended that applicant Rakesh is father-in-law of deceased. He is aged about 66 years and thus an old and infirm person. Attention of Court was invited to paragraph 11 of the bail application of applicant Rakesh. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant submits that by virtue of provisions contained in section 437 Cr.P.C. applicant Rakesh is also liable to be enlarged on bail. Applicant Chanchal Sharma is in jail since 29.12.2021. As such, she has also undergone three months of incarceration. Applicant Rakesh is in jail since 25.12.2021. As such, he has undergone three months of incarceration. In case, applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. On the aforesaid premise, it is urged that applicants are liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant.
Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record as well as the complicity of applicant and accusation made but without making any comment on the merits of the case, I find that applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.
Let the applicants Chanchal Sharma and Rakesh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their 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 SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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 HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/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 HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 4.4.2022 Arshad