JUDGMENT :

RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

1. Heard Sri. A.K. Shukla, Advocate assisted by Sri. Arvind Kumar learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of this application, the applicant who is mother-in-law involved in case crime no. 342 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station-Jaswantnagar, District-Etawah is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.02.2020.

3. Contention raised by the counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was registered by one Rama Shanker on 24.08.2020 under the aforesaid sections of the IPC against Amit (husband of the deceased) and all his family members including the present applicant. Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the marriage of the daughter of the informant with the son of the applicant was solemnized on 23.05.2020 and thereafter she was returned back to her parental home on 28.05.2020. On 14.08.2020 on Gauna Ceremony was performed and thereafter Chandini (deceased) has come to join the company of her husband and on 21.08.2020, she has committed suicide by hanging herself. On this premise it has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that from 23.05.2020 to 21.08.2020 total (3 days + 7 days = 10 days) ten days she lived in her matrimonial home in peace meal. During ten days period, it is highly improbable that the husband and other in-laws would demand a motorcycle and Rs. 2 lakhs cash. More particularly during her honeymoon period it is highly unlikely that she would be tortured or harassed for the demand of additional dowry. In addition to above it is submitted that applicant who is mother-in-law cannot be said to be a beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry. It was suggested by the learned counsel for the applicant that she was forced to marry with Amit (husband) against her wish and desire and out of sheer frustration she has taken this extreme foolish steps by hanging herself.

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

5. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

6. Let the applicant-Smt. Munni Devi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 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 HER 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