Allowed

Mamta Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2018BAIL/30597/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30597 of 2018, the court granted bail to Mamta Devi challenging a dowry death charge. The applicant was implicated under Sections 498A IPC and 304B IPC for the death of her sister-in-law, alleging false implication.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Mamta Devi released on bail with personal bond and two sureties upon furnishing an undertaking regarding adjournments and court attendance.

Mamta Devi Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30597 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mamta Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 148 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District- Bijnore, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. She has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the applicant is Jethani. She resides separately. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Magnesh on 27.05.2017 but there was some dispute cropped up between the couple and the deceased left her matrimonial house on account of dispute and at her parental house, she has consumed poison and died. It is further submitted that in order to take her back the husband Magnesh has moved an application u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution and conjugal right on 20.03.2018 which was registered as Suit No. 287 of 2018 (Magnesh Kumar Vs. Ruchin @ Ruchi) and the proceeding was initiated near about two months prior lodging the FIR against the applicant. It is next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 18.05.2018 having no criminal antecedents except the present one.

¶9

Learned AGA 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 nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the

¶11

view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Mamta 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶15

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/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 HIM/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 THE HIM/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

¶19

his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶20

Order Date :- 14.8.2018 Nisha

Mamta Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Devi 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

Ram Achal Vs State of U.P.

Urmila Vs State of U.P.

Vikash Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Monu Vs State of U.P.

Sangam Singh Vs State of U.P.

Siddh Gopal Vs State of U.P.