Allowed

Bindu Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2018BAIL/32718/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to Bindu Devi, initially named as an accused in a dowry-related Section 498-A and 304-B IPC case. Recognizing older age and lack of prior record, bail was granted subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions to attend court and file undertaking against adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32718 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Bindu Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 798 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Paikoliya, District-Basti, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the mother-in-law. There is no whisper of any additional dowry in the FIR. It is only after six months in the statement of father of the deceased, Majid disclosed that there was a demand of golden chain and finger ring. As many as four persons were roped in this FIR. She conceive poison and salfas found in the viscera. At this stage the prosecution has fill in the blank by mentioning the additional amount of dowry i.e. golden chain and finger ring in the Statement of father of the deceased, Majid. The applicant is in jail since 18.04.2018, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.

¶8

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.

¶9

Keeping in view the age and 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.

¶10

Let the applicant- Bindu Devi , be released on bail in Case Crime No. 798 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Paikoliya, District-Basti 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:-

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS 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, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶15

(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 HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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 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.

¶18

Order Date :- 28.8.2018 S. Thakur

Bindu Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindu 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

Vikas Bind Vs State of U.P.

Charan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Ajor Vs State of U.P.

Gajraj Vs State of U.P.

Noor Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Vs State of U.P.