Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17145 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Urmila Mishra & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,A.K. Awasthi Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.
Heard Mr. V. P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sanjai Kumar
Singh,learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Manish Tiwary, learned counsel
for the complainant , learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The brief facts of the case as enumerated in the affidavit filed in support of the
bail application are as under:
The applicants no. 1 and 2 are the Jethanis of the informant( Smt. Beena
Mishra) and applicant no. 3 is her Nanad . He further submits that the
marriage of the informant was performed with the younger Dewar (Ved
Prakash Misra husband of the informant Smt. Beena Mishra) of the applicants
no. 1 and 2 and the brother of applicant no. 3 on 27.4.1999 at Jaunpur and at
that time the father of the informant was posted as Additional District Judge at
Jaunpur and Gauna ceremony was performed on 9.12.1999. He further
submits that just after Gauna she, being daughter of a Judge, started posing
herself to be superior to the other family members, and seeing her conduct,
the family members of her husband were quite shocked and surprised and
then, later on, they came to know that the informant was mentally sick and
had been suffering from fits even before the marriage.Later on , since the
informant insisted at living separately from her in laws, the husband of the
informant, who was posted as Technical Director in Vinayaka
Environment,Murli Bhawan, Lucknow, started living separately at Lucknow
along with the informant and even while living separately the informant used
to harass and beat her husband and many times she insulted him in presence
of his family members and relatives.
On 23.1.2001, out of their wedlock, a son was born, and on account of her
arrogant nature and abnormal mental condition she had thrown the newly born
child of about 5 months on the floor causing him internal brain problem. On
29.6.2001 the father of the informant came to the house of the informant and
forcibly took the baby away and thereafter the informant also left her nuptial
home and went back to her Mayaka to her father along with her clothes,
ornaments etc. from Lucknow to Barabanki and since then she did not return
and on account of the aforesaid injury and lack of proper and adequate
treatment and care of the child, he could not survive and ultimately he died in
the Mayaka of the informant.
Since the husband of the informant was under the constant threat and
harassment of his wife and father in law and was being tortured mentally and
physically by them by sending unsocial elements at his house, therefore,
under such compelling circumstances, he had no alternative but to resign from
his service and under depression and frustration he left his house on 28.4.2002
without informing any one. Thereafter, the informant, in a preplanned
manner, in collusion with her father, with a view to save their skin , filed
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 488 of 2002 on behalf of her husband before
the High Court, at Lucknow Bench and subsequently got the same dismissed
on 6.5.2003. The harassment and torture of the informant in collusion with her
father was brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the father in law
of the applicants no. 1 and 2 by means of several complaints , copies of which
have been annexed as Annexures no. 1,2,3 and 4 to the affidavit filed in
support of the bail application.
On 19.3.2003 the informant with a view to harass and pressurise the family
members of her husband in collusion with her father had also lodged an F.I.R.
under sections 395 and 397 I.P.C. in which the I.O. under the influence of her
father submitted charge sheet under sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. The higher
police authorities including D.I.G.,Varanasi, at the instance of the father of
the informant , who was posted at Varanasi, District Judge, also pressurised
the family members of the applicant several times to give Rs. 60 lacs to the
informant and threatened them with dire consequences on his official
telephone (details of which have been given in para 18 of the affidavit).
In continuation of her illwill and evil design , after 11 years of her marriage,
the informant again lodged an F.I.R. under sections 498 A, 364 , 406 and ¾
Dowry Prohibition Act on 13.6.2010 against the applicants and other relatives
of her husband cooking up an absolutely false and fictitious story of
harassment and demand of dowry alleging therein that there is a likelihood of
her husband being got kidnapped and murdered by the family members of the
applicants and the father of the informant misusing his power and post as a
District Judge became successful in getting the applicants sent to Jail under
the garb of the aforesaid F.I.R. without verifying the correctness of the
allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. and the bail applications of the
applicants were also ultimately rejected by the court below .
Mr. Ved Prakash Mishra, husband of the informant is present in the court and
has been identified by his counsel .
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that
since the husband of the informant was living separately and was posted at
Lucknow on the date of incident , the applicants have no concern at all with
the matrimonial affairs of the informant and her husband. Even then, at the
instance of the father of the informant they have been falsely implicated in the
present case and have been very badly beaten and tortured by the jail
authorities in the Jail and on account of the atrocities committed by the Jail
authorities, the conditions of the applicants became serious in the Jail and
therefore on 18.6.2010 they had been admitted in S.S.P.G. D. D. Hospital ,
Varanasi by the Jail authorities to save their skin and as soon as this fact came
to the knowledge of the father of the informant he immediately managed to
get them discharged from the said hospital and sent to Jail even in their
serious conditions. Referring to Annexure nos. 11, 12 and 13 of the affidavit,
which are the copies of the prescription slips of the applicant, he further
submits that the applicants are suffering from various diseases and their
further detention in the Jail is dangerous to their life. He further submits that
as soon as the husband of the informant came to know about lodging of the
impugned F.I.R. and the torture being committed by the informant and her
father , after eight years he came back to his house and after coming to know
about the entire episode during this period, tried to get his statement recorded
before the Investigating Officer , but since on account of the interference of
the father of the informant , who was posted as District Judge, Varanasi, the
I.O. refused to record his statement, he filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
10955 of 2010 for quashing of the F.I.R. making specific allegation against
the complainant, her father and the police authorities who were committing
atrocities on his family members at the instance of the father of the
complainant . He further submits that the parents as well as other family
members of Ved Prakas Mishra suffered a set back after his disappearance
from his house on 28.4.2002, all of a sudden, on account of the atrocities
being committed by the informant and her father on him, and soon after his
disappearance, his wife (informant ) also left her nuptial home and since then
she is bearing a grudge against the applicants and making all efforts to harass
the family members of Ved Prakash Misra. Taking advantage of her father’s
post and power, the informant got registered many criminal cases against the
applicant including the present one. He further submits that since the
applicants have nothing to do with the family affairs of the informant, they
can not be held guilty or fastened with any liability , as alleged by the
prosecution and the present prosecution has been launched at the behest of the
informant in collusion with the higher police authorities malafide with a view
to pressurise and put them in constant harassment. He further submits that the
applicants being ladies are entitled to the benefits provided under section 437
Cr.P.C. He further submits that the applicants have got no criminal history to
their credit and there are no chances of their fleeing away from the judicial
process or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and are in jail since
15.6.2010.
Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned A.G.A.
vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the informant is a
well educated lady and was living in her nuptial home in a dignified manner
as it was expected from her and the applicants in league with other co accused
started torturing her and ultimately made her life a miserable hell. It is further
contended that the husband of the informant ( Ved Prakash Mishra) was
illegally detained by the applicants and other co accused for about 8 years and
the informant was never told about his whereabouts, and this conduct on the
part of the applicants itself reflects that they were adamant to torture and
cause mental agony to the informant in a most inhumane manner. It is further
contended that if husband of the informant Mr. Ved Prakash Mishra had left
the house without telling any one, the applicants and his other family
members would have made endeavour to know about his whereabouts but
they never made any effort to do so and this fact itself goes to show that they
were knowing about his whereabouts and they had deliberately concealed this
fact only with a view to torture and cause mental agony to the informant. It is
further submitted that the applicants and other co accused persons have also
not spared the father of the informant to malign his name. It is further
contended that taking into account the conduct and guilt committed by the
applicants, they do not deserve to be bailed out and the bail application is
liable to be rejected outrightly.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the
accused, severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail.
Let the applicants Smt. Urmila Mishra , Smt. Babita Mishra and Smt. Anita
Dubey involved in Case Crime No. 299 of 2010 under Sections 498A, 364,
406 I.P.C. and ¾ dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Cantt, District Varanasi be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned .
Order Date :- 9.7.2010
MLK