# Chandrakala v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 17
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-02
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14632 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandrakala-v-state-of-u-p-48101
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

G.A. (Raveesh Chandra Mishra)

A. Bail - The Court on considering the facts of
the case granted bail to the applicant subject to
the conditions laid imposed on him. (Para 13)
Bail Application Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Chandrakala Vs. State of U.P.
17

20. Keeping in view that the nature of
offence under Section 498-A coupled with
Section 304-B which bears a reverse
burden of proof upon the present accusedapplicant, as a husband, trusted by wife to
have responsibility of protecting her from
every risk of life and limb, allegedly
committed the cruelty with wife in
connection with demand of dowry and
done her to death in the matrimonial home,
his misdoings, as emerging from the
statements of witness annexed with the
counter affidavit are also sufficient together
to show, he is capable of tampering the
evidences and affect the witness adversely.

21. The trial court while deciding the
case on merit, need not to sway with the
observation made in this order and shall
rely upon the facts proved in due course of
examination during trial.

22. On the basis of above discussions,
I find no force in the submission of learned
counsel for the bail-applicant and the bailapplication is rejected at this stage.
----------
(2022)02ILR A17
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14632 of
2021

Chandrakala ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Surya Kant Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A. (Raveesh Chandra Mishra)

A. Bail - The Court on considering the facts of
the case granted bail to the applicant subject to
the conditions laid imposed on him. (Para 13)
Bail Application Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs NCT, Delhi & anr. 2001
4 SCC 280 (followed)

2. Sanjay Chandra Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation 2012 1 SCC 40 (Spectrum Scam
Case) (followed)

3. Dataram Singh Vs St.of U.P. & ors. (2018) 3
SCC 22 (followed)
(Delivered by Hon'ble 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-
18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 fatherin-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. 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."
2 All. Chandrakala Vs. State of U.P.
19

8. On the aforesaid contention,
learned counsel prayed to grant order of
release on bail to the present accusedapplicant.

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.
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
20 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. 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. 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:-
2 All. Chandrakala Vs. State of U.P.
21

"8. The jurisdiction to grant bail
has to be exercised on the basis of wellsettled 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.
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."
22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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.
----------
(2022)02ILR A22
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36790 of
2021

Sujay U. Desai ...Applicant
Versus
Serious Fraud Investigation Office, CGO
Complex, Delhi ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ms. Gunjan Jadwani, Sri Kartikeya Saran,
Mr. Amar Gahlot, Sri Anurag Khanna(Senior
Adv.)

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.S.G.I., Sri Manoj Kumar Singh

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section 439 - The Company
Act, 2013 - Section 212(6)(ii) -The offence
committed by the applicant is an economic
offence of huge magnitude affecting economy of