Allowed

Smt. Babita v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2019BAIL/10179/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was heard by Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J. regarding charges of dowry death. The applicant contended lack of specific role and no criminal history. The court found it a fit case for bail without commenting on merits but imposed standard conditions including personal attendance and cooperation with trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Smt. Babita released on bail under Sections 498-A, 328, 506, 342, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10179 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Babita Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

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

¶6

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 with inordinate delay on 2.7.2018 by Ghure Lal, his two daughters Roshni and Sonam @ Sona were married to Sunil and Vipin, real brothers on 3.12.2017 and since after marriage, they were being treated with cruelty for non fulfilment of demand of Apache Motorcycle and Rs.2,00,000/and on 2.4.2018 his daughter Sonam informed him that she is being beaten for non fulfilment of demand of dowry, upon which he reached at her matrimonial house and requested to not treat his daughters with cruelty, as he is not capable of giving anything more, upon which after return of first informant her in-laws beaten her with kicks and fists and also beaten Roshani, who came for rescue and upon further protest by Sonam, she was hanged to death and on 23.4.2018 his elder daughter Roshni was again beaten, who escaped to her maika and since F.I.R. was not lodged earlier, the same may be lodged; 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 Apache Motorcycle and Rs.2,00,000/- allegedly demanded, as dowry; that as per post mortem report cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of anti mortem hanging; that except ligature mark no other anti mortem injury was found on the person of Sonam; that inquest report of deceased was prepared on 4.4.2018 in presence of first informant as well as his wife and F.I.R. has been lodged after a period of about 03 months, since incident; that in statements of first informant and witnesses recorded after inordinate delay false allegations of demand of dowry have been made; that deceased was having pre-marital love affair with one Satyapal of her maternal village and when

¶7

it came to knowledge of her husband Vipin, matter was compromised, but deceased did not let the marriage consummate; that under undue influence first informant got an agreement executed from applicant for transferring her entire property in favour of her elder daughter-in-law Roshni, the sister of deceased; that on account of alleged habit of drinking liquor by her husband and illicit relationship of her husband with some other girl, following some dispute between husband and wife, death of deceased appears to have taken place in unnatural manner, for which only her husband may be responsible; that case of applicant is distinguishable from husband of deceased; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that she will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 13.11.2018.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed prayer of bail in this case of dowry death within 7 years of marriage and contended that unnatural death of Sonam has been caused within 04 months of marriage for non fulfilment of demand of dowry and soon before her death deceased was being treated with cruelty in connection with non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and her death has taken place due to asphyxia as a result of anti mortem hanging otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and there is presumption of dowry death against applicant under section 113(B) or in alternative 113(A) of Indian Evidence Act.

¶9

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

¶10

Let applicant Smt. Babita be released on bail in Case Crime No.554 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 328, 506, 342, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Farah, District Mathura, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant will co-operate with 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.

¶12

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence

¶13

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 :- 12.3.2019 Tamang

Smt. Babita v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Babita 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

Smt. Haseena Vs State of U.P.

Malti Devi Vs State of U.P.

Deepu @ Prabhat Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Kumar Giri Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Patel Vs State of U.P.

Mangeram Vs State of U.P.