Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 134 (ALL)

Chandrakala v. State of U. P.

2022-02-02

VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV

body2022
JUDGMENT : VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J. 1. Case is called out. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Surya Kant Singh, Advocate, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Raveesh Chandra Mishra, Advocate through video conferencing and perused the record. 3. The present bail application is moved on behalf of the accused-applicant involved in Case Crime No. 358 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Cornailganj, District- Gonda. 4. The prosecution case as emerged from the First Information Report lodged on the complaint of one ‘Nandlal’, brother of the deceased, Sanju who died in the incident in question on 29.09.2021. The deceased wife of Vinod Kumar is stated to have married 12 years ago from the date of incident with the said Vinod Yadav s/o Ramchandra Yadav r/o of village Nakhara, Police Station-Colonelganj, District-Gonda. During the wedlock of Vinod Yadav and complainant’s sister Sanju two children were begotten. The complainant reported that on 29.9.2021 he came to know that her sister was not well and died in the course of treatment. He further revealed that father-in-law, Ramchandra Yadav, mother-in-law (the present accused-applicant) and brother of the father-in-law used to beat the deceased Sanju in connection with demand of the dowry and also on the date of incident she was beaten by them due to which she sustained injuries. 5. Complainant further stated that his brother-in-law Vinod Yadav brought his wife Sanju to the hospital for treatment who was badly injured and died there on the same day i.e., 29.9.2021. This complaint was made on 8.10.2021 almost after ten days. In support of the bail application the deponent on the affidavit has annexed the application dated 29.9.2021 addressed to the Station House Officer, Police Station-Karnailganj, District-Gonda by aforesaid Vinod Yadav s/o of Ramchandra Yadav to the effect that his wife, with whom he was married 12 to 13 years ago, fell seriously ill in the morning on 29.9.2021. He brought her for treatment in the hospital where she died but since his in-laws were suspecting otherwise on receiving information of death he requested to post-mortem of the dead body. 6. He brought her for treatment in the hospital where she died but since his in-laws were suspecting otherwise on receiving information of death he requested to post-mortem of the dead body. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant in the context of the above facts and circumstances submitted that present accused-applicant (mother-in-law of the deceased) has no connection with the deceased since last 12 to 13 years as Vinod Yadav along with the deceased wife was living separately with their two children in another house. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant having no concern with the affairs of Vinod Kumar and his deceased wife, does not know about the incident how and under what circumstances the wife of Vinod Kumar namely Sanju was died on 29.9.2021. It is further argued that the Vinod Yadav is the only person who was in immediate nexus with the deceased as her husband. After ten days from the incident so as to escape from the liability in collusion with his brother-in-law, he falsely implicated the present accused-applicant, her husband and brother of her husband as in-laws of the deceased. 7. Para 11 and 13 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application is relevant in this regard and are being reproduced hereunder:- "11. That the accused/applicant with her husband and alogwith three sons out of which two are minor are living separately since 5 years from the deceased, in this regard the village pradhan has also given certificate on 19/11/2021 regarding family partition with the deceased family, and the said is also evident from the family register of the deceased as well as accused/applicant’s family. The copy of the certificate dated 19/11/2021 and family register of the deceased and the accused/applicant, aadhar are being annexed as Annexure No.7 and 8 to this affidavit. 13. That the marriage of the deceased was solemnized before 13 years with son of the accused/applicant and two children were also born with the deceased, the accused/applicant and her husband has not made any demand of dowry and also not committed any offence till date, no any complaint has been made by the complainant as well as deceased against the accused/applicant and her husband." 8. On the aforesaid contention, learned counsel prayed to grant order of release on bail to the present accused-applicant. 9. On the aforesaid contention, learned counsel prayed to grant order of release on bail to the present accused-applicant. 9. To the contrary, learned A.G.A. argued that in-laws of the deceased except her husband were demanding dowry and when the said demand were not fulfilled, they brutally beaten the deceased on 29.9.2021 by reason of which she sustained serious injuries and died in the course of treatment in the hospital, therefore, the case against the present accused-applicant and other in-laws made under Section 498-A, 304 of the I.P.C. as well as under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is made of. Learned A.G.A. in support of his contention relied on the post-mortem report, wherein it is opined by the doctor who done autopsy on the dead body cause of death is hemorrhage and shock due to ante mortem injuries. Ante-mortem injuries reported in the post-mortem report are given hereunder:- "1. Incised wound 2 cmx 1 cm over left side of neck, skin deep 7 cm below left ear. 2. Contusion 13 cm x 10 cm right side of lower chest with ..... side 5th to 10th rib natur with lacerated liver. 3. Contusion 6cm x 2 cm over left side of ...... 4. Contusion 3 cm x 1 cm over left elbow. 5. Contusion 7 cm x 3 cm left side of scapula. 6. Mutliple contusion 9 cm x 3 cm left side back of leg." 10. Learned A.G.A. further pressed the above ante mortem injuries as the incriminating facts against the present accused-applicant showing the cruelty in connection with their demand of the dowry with the deceased. 11. Considered the arguments made by the learned counsels for and against each other. The case in hand is peculiar enough for the reason, the brother-in-law of Vinod Yadav lodged complaint against the in-laws except him though he was husband of the deceased with allegation of demand of dowry and of subjecting the deceased to cruelty in connection therewith. In affidavit support of the bail application the fact of separate living of Vinod Yadav along with deceased and their children stated in very clear terms. In support of the fact of separate living as deposed in the affidavit, the copy of the Parivar Register of House No. 312 with entry as to it belonging to Vinod Yadav with Sanju and Ankit. In support of the fact of separate living as deposed in the affidavit, the copy of the Parivar Register of House No. 312 with entry as to it belonging to Vinod Yadav with Sanju and Ankit. Whereas copy of Parivar Register of House No. 311 of Ramchandra Yadav with inmates Chandrakala, Bhagyamati, Rohit, Ajay and Rahul is placed on record. Therefore, the fact of separate living of the deceased along with husband and her children is prima facie established by affidavit in support of the bail application and annexures made thereto. 12. Vinod Kumar, husband of the deceased himself has moved an application to the Station House Officer, Police Station-Cornailganj, District-Gonda on 29.9.2021 informing him that his wife Sanju with whom he had married 12 to 13 years ago fell ill in the morning of 29.9.2021 and he brought her for treatment to the hospital where in the course of treatment she died, even he himself present at the time of inquest wherein death was opined by the witnesses as told to them by reason of illness and unwellness. It is the post-mortem report only which disclosed the ante-mortem injuries on the person of the dead body. Thereafter the complaint of deceased brother namely Nandlal was moved with a delay of ten days from the date of incident. Para 8 of the affidavit in support of the bail application thus corroborats the sequence of events appearing from the proceeding of investigation as stated hereinabove. Para 8 of the affidavit is reproduced hereunder:- 8. That after ten days, the brother of the deceased with collusion of deceased’s husband, he had made a complaint for lodging the first information report against the accused/applicant (mother-in-law), fahter in law and cousin father in law and the same was registered. Thereafter, the Investigating officer had recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of complainant Nandlal and his father Babulal on 09/10/2021 but both have not supported the prosecution story. The typed copy of the statement of complainant Nandlal and his fahter Babulal dated 09/10/2021 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No.5 and 6 respectively to this affidavit. 13. The typed copy of the statement of complainant Nandlal and his fahter Babulal dated 09/10/2021 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No.5 and 6 respectively to this affidavit. 13. This is also noteworthy here that throughout the married life of Vinod Yadav and wife Sanju for a considerable period of 12 to 13 years there is nothing on record of prosecution to show any complaint with regard to demand of dowry and cruelty committed with the deceased, Sanju had ever been made. Even the parents of deceased have not complained of any such incriminating incident against the present accused-applicant and other in-laws. 14. So far as ante mortem injuries found on the person of the dead body of the deceased Sanju are concerned, by reason of separate living of the deceased with her husband as established prime facie from evidences on record seems not possible to have been caused by a cruel act done by the present accused-applicant or other in-laws because in matrimonial house of the deceased which is a separate house than that of the present accused-applicant, the deceased have been in immediate nexus of her husband Vinod Yadav is the only person to explain how and under what circumstances such injuries were caused to the deceased while she was alive with him in the matrimonial house. This is also relevant to refer the application dated 29.9.2021 addressed to the Station House Officer, Police Station Cornailganj, District-Gonda in which the husband of the deceased Vinod Yadav have stated clearly that his wife fell seriously ill on 29.9.2021 and he brought her to the hospital for treatment where she died. It seems that the fact of injuries sustained by the deceased is willingly and knowingly concealed purposely by the husband of the deceased. 15. On the discussions made hereinabove the prima facie case of prosecution as to the commission of offence under Section 498-A, 304 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 D.P. Act is not found to have established prima facie by evidence on record produced by the prosecution. 16. To the contrary learned counsel for the applicant by reason of her separate living than that of the deceased have no concern with the incident dated 29.9.2021 as prima facie established from the evidence on record produced by the prosecution itself found prima facie no involvement in the offence. 17. In Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. 16. To the contrary learned counsel for the applicant by reason of her separate living than that of the deceased have no concern with the incident dated 29.9.2021 as prima facie established from the evidence on record produced by the prosecution itself found prima facie no involvement in the offence. 17. In Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi and another -( 2001 4 SCC 280 ), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held some parameters for grant of bail, which are being quoted hereunder:- "8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behavior, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." 18. The purpose of the bail is neither to punish the accused-appellant by keeping him in jail or to teach him a lesson but the object of the bail is to ensure the presence of the accused-appellant during the trial. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 21, 22 and 23 of the judgment given in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [( 2012 1 SCC 40 )-(Spectrum Scam Case)], has laid down certain objects of bail under Section 437 & 439 of the Cr.P.C. which are as follows: "21. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 21, 22 and 23 of the judgment given in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [( 2012 1 SCC 40 )-(Spectrum Scam Case)], has laid down certain objects of bail under Section 437 & 439 of the Cr.P.C. which are as follows: "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson." 19. Keeping into mind the valuable right of personal liberty and the fundamental principle not to disbelieve a person to be innocent unless held guilty and if he is not arraigned with the charge of an offence for which the law has put on him a reverse burden of proving his innocence as, held in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in [ (2018) 3 SCC 22 ], I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the accused-appellant to enlarge him on bail. 20. Let applicant (Chandrakala) involved in Case Crime No. 358 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Cornailganj, District-Gonda be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-by two different sureties of the like amount, the social and economic status of whom to be on the satisfaction and verification of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (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 misuse 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 applicants 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.