Single Judge granted bail to an accused in a dowry death case after finding it a fit case, noting she lacked specific active role allegations and lived in Bangalore.
Release applicant on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to cooperation with trial and non-tampering conditions.
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. - 12844 of 2019
Applicant :- Smt. Arti Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Uday Gopal, Advocate on behalf of first informant, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Uday Gopal, 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 Jethani of deceased; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged by Kailash on 1.5.2018, his sister Radha was married to Rohtas about one year ago and since after marriage she was being treated with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of Car and gold chain as dowry and on 30.4.2018 at about 11:00 p.m. attempt on her life was made by putting her on fire by which she sustained 60-70% burns; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect; 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 Car and gold chain allegedly demanded, as dowry; that applicant lives in Banglore State of Karnataka where her husband works for gain by doing service at a shop; that deceased was living at village and her husband was also working at Banglore and deceased was insisting her husband to fetch her to Banglore; that upon getting information of sustaining burn injuries by deceased, Devrani of applicant, she along with her husband immediately rushed for village by train in general compartment at railway ticket no.DOY8C3E485 & DOY8C3E486 and since train does not go to Aligarh they obtained railway ticket from Banglore to Agra Cantt.; that applicant was not at all present at village Makhdoom Nagar at the time of incident and may not have taken any active part in alleged incident of causing burn injuries to Radha; that in her dying declaration on 1.5.2018 deceased has not made any specific allegation against applicant rather general allegations of putting her on fire after pouring kerosene have been made; that death of deceased did take place due to
septicaemia as a result of ante-mortem thermal burn after a period of 1½ months from the incident on 12.6.2018; that applicant did not cause dowry death of Radha; that case of applicant is distinguishable from husband of deceased; that applicant along with her six months old infant child are languishing in jail since 25.9.2018; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that she will not misuse liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant vehemently opposed prayer of bail in this case of dowry death within 7 years of marriage.
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. Arti Devi be released on bail in Case Crime No.109 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Gangiri, District Aligarh, 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 :- 1.4.2019 Kpy
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Smt. Arti Devi is entitled to bail in a case of alleged dowry death under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.
Whether the severity of punishment and nature of complicity preclude granting bail in this instance.
Smt. Arti Devi
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
