In a bail application under Sections 498A, 304-B, 302 IPC, the High Court granted bail to the applicants, observing specific conditions and directing the trial court to expedite the trial citing relevant Supreme Court precedents.
Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties of like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27449 of 2018
Applicant :- Moti Lal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Srivastava,Siddhartha Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Himanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicants – Moti Lal and Lal Pari with a prayer to enlarge them on bail in Case Crime No.330 of 2017 under sections 498A, 304-B & 302 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, PS. Kotwali, District Kushinagar.
As per allegations made in the first Information, the marriage of Sunita (victim), who is daughter of the informant, was solemnised with accused Raju on 31.1.2013 as per Hindu Rights and Rituals. It has further been alleged that the in-laws of the victim were demanding motorcycle and golden chain for which they used to harass the victim. In that regard panchayats were repeatedly held between the parties in order to convince the in-laws of the victim. In between, victim was blessed with two daughters, who were aged about three years and one years, but they had not changed their behaviours with the victim and her harassment was continuing. It is further alleged that the in-laws of the victim solemnized the second marriage of Raju with the sister of his Bhabhi and the in-laws of the victim ousted the victim from her matrimonial house in order to get rid of her . On 13.5.2016 an application was given at Mahila Police Station Padrauna and thereafter both the parties entered into compromise and the in-laws of the victim agreed to keep her. After sometime all the family members of in-laws of the victim have made conspiracy to take out the victim from the house and on 3.5.2016 poured kerosene upon the victim as well as upon her two daughters to kill them.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that in fact the victim was persistently demanding to reside with her husband who was working at Faridabad and due to depression the victim committed suicide by pouring kerosene upon her. Learned counsel has pressed this application on the ground that applicants are mother-in-law and father-in-law and they were not involved in the incident as the applicants are in jail since 11.1.2018. It is next contended that the applicants have no criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, the applicants shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Accordingly, they request for bail.
From a perusal of the record it is clear that all the family members were present at the time of inquest and door was closed from inside in which victim alongwith her daughter committed suicide and after breaking the door by villagers the victim was taken out by villagers as well as family members.
Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicants but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicants involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their 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 applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
(ii) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(iii) The applicants shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicants shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it will be open to the opposite parties to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.
However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440 , if there is no legal impediment.
Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance
Order Date :- 15.11.2019 Rk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for bail coming from the High Court should be allowed subject to conditions.
If the trial court is directed to expedite the trial in view of relevant Supreme Court decisions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and anotherExplained¶11
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and anotherApplied¶17
AIR 2018 (SC) 2440 · Who else cites this
Moti Lal
Lal Pari
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
