Allowed

Sushma Raghav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2018BAIL/15968/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered a bail application under Sections 304-B and 498A IPC in a dowry death case where the applicant was the mother-in-law. The applicant lacked criminal antecedents and no specific evidence pointed to her role in causing fatal injury. The court was satisfied that she made out a case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

Sushma Raghav Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15968 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sushma Raghav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Verma,Anil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kameshwar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the complainant today in the Court is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.36 of 2018, under Section 304-B, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station-Kasna, District-Gautam Budh Nagar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR was registered by the first informant, father of the deceased against the applicant and three other coaccused persons. The allegation is that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the members of her in-laws in connection with the demand of additional dowry and on account of this, she was tortured till her death. The applicant is the mother-in-law and is suffering from number of bodily ailments. General and omnibus role has been attributed to all the family members of the husband who is languishing in jail. The husband-Kuldeep was suffering from psychosis (a mental disorder) in which a person gets wild and obsessive. This fact is born out from the statement of Dr. Sonakshi(annexure-11) and he under the fit of aggression, has committed this offence. There is no dying declaration against the applicant nor there is any eye witness account of the alleged incident. There are four accused persons, who were assigned the role of assaulting the deceased but it is not clear as to who has caused the fatal injury. The applicant is in jail since 13.01.2018, having no criminal antecedents to her credit.

¶9

Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the complainant 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.

¶10

Keeping in view the relationship of the applicant with the deceased and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Sushma Raghav, involved in case crime no.36 of 2018, under Section 304-B, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station-Kasna, District-Gautam Budh Nagar be released on bail on furnishing a

¶12

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:-

¶13

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE 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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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 AND PROCEED AGAINST HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶17

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶18

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on her bail so granted by this court.

¶19

Order Date :- 9.8.2018 Sumit S

Sushma Raghav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushma Raghav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harbansh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Ashish Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Purnima Alias Poonam Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Gajraj Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.