Allowed

Sahodara Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2019BAIL/10139/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to Sahodara Devi, an accused in a dowry death case, after distinguishing her role from the actual alleged shooters. The applicant was ordered to furnish a personal bond and two sureties while agreeing to cooperate with the trial.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each to the satisfaction of the magistrate/court.

Sahodara Devi Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10139 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sahodara Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Chandra Singh,Anand Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated for dowry death with general allegations being mother-in-law of deceased; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged on 25.10.2018 by Balister Yadav, his sister Tejan was married to Angad Yadav about five years back and since after marriage she was being treated with cruelty for nonfulfilment of demand of dowry and her death was caused on 20.10.2018 by her husband and in laws by putting her on fire after pouring kerosene on her; that Smt. Tejan died during treatment on 24.10.2018 at 1 p.m. in B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur, and as per her post mortem report she died due to shock and ante mortem burn injuries; that on 22.10.2018 dying declaration of deceased was recorded copy at SA- 1 wherein she stated that her Jethani-Renu and her husband-Angad Yadav put her on fire after pouring kerosene on her; that no specific role has been assigned to applicant regarding demand of dowry or treating deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that applicant neither made any demand of dowry nor treated deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that applicant may not be beneficiary of allegedly demanded, as dowry; that no role has been assigned to applicant in putting her on fire; that case of applicant is distinguishable from Renu and Angad Yadav; that the applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that she will not misuse liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 11.1.2019.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed prayer of bail in this case of dowry death within 7 years of marriage .

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering complicity of accused, severity of punishment; as

¶10

well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Sahodara Devi be released on bail in Case Crime No. 0338 of 2018, under Sections 323, 506, 498-A, 304B I.P.C., and 3/4 D.P Act, P.S. Kothibhar, District Maharajganj, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that she is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶13

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶15

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶16

Order Date :- 11.3.2019 Md Faisal

Sahodara Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahodara 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brij Behari and 03 Others Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Gyanwati Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Meera Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Haseena Vs State of U.P.

Malti Devi Vs State of U.P.

Deepu @ Prabhat Vs State of U.P.