This judgment grants bail to Smt. Guddi, an accused person falsely implicated in a dowry death case under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 201 IPC. The court found it a fit case for bail at the current stage subject to conditions.
Release on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12656 of 2019
Applicant :- Smt. Guddi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Niklank Jain, Advocate on behalf of first informant today in the Court, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Niklank Jain, learned counsel for first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
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 13.9.2018 by Hop Singh, his daughter Priyanka was married to Kamlesh about 03 years back and since after marriage, she was being treated with cruelty for non fulfilment of demand of dowry, despite giving a she buffalo worth Rs.60,000/-, and on 12.9.2018 her dowry death has been committed by pouring kerosene and putting her on fire by her husband Kamlesh, mother-in-law Smt. Guddi and Dewar Ravindra, before the first informant and family members could reach, her cremation was performed and when the first informant and his family members reached, they fled away leaving the pyre; 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 in F.I.R. no specific article has been mentioned to be demanded as dowry however in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., first informant has stated that there was demand of motorcycle; that real fact is that marriage between deceased and Kamlesh did take place on 14.6.2012, copy of wedding card at Annexure No.4 and in 7th year of marriage, applicant had no reason to make demand of motorcycle, which may be used by her husband; that applicant neither poured kerosene on deceased nor put her on fire; that it appears that for non fulfilment of demand of motorcycle, her husband would have poured kerosene on Priyanka and he may be solely responsible for her dowry death; that case of applicant is distinguishable from
Kamlesh, the husband of deceased; that funeral of deceased was performed in presence of first informant and family members and due to excessive rain post mortem was not done; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that she will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 14.11.2018.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that dowry death of deceased has been committed within seven years of marriage for non fulfilment of demand of motorcycle and the accused-persons managed to make the evidence disappear by not getting the post mortem of body of deceased conducted and getting her cremation done before first informant and family members could reach.
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.
Let applicant Smt. Guddi be released on bail in Case Crime No.226 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Piluwa, District Etah on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(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.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
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.
Order Date :- 29.3.2019 Tamang
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant accused in a dowry death case without adjudicating on merits of the case.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Guddi
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Harsh Kumar
Parties & counsel
