Allowed bail application for Urmila Pandey under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Court imposed conditions regarding evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and appearance before trial court.
Release on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties each, subject to five specific conditions of behavior and appearance.
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. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17746 of 2019
Applicant :- Urmila Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Indra Mohan Singh, Advocate on behalf of complainant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, in this case, after investigation by Investigating Officer, final report was submitted; against final report complaint was filed; statements of P.W.1 to P.W.5 were recorded. On 21.12.2016 accused Ajay Pandey, Smt. Lalmati, Urmila Pandey and Keral Pandey were summoned for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is lady. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is general allegation against the applicant. There is no independent witness and no legal evidence against the applicant. Applicant was summoned without giving opportunity of hearing of cross-examination. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. She is languishing in jail since 26.3.2019 (one month) having no criminal history and in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let applicant Urmila Pandey involved in Case No. 1455 of 2014 as well as Case Crime No. 177 of 2013, under
Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Farenda, District Maharajganj be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.
5.The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 A. Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail application filed by the accused lady should be allowed given her lack of criminal history and the grievances raised by the counsel.
Whether specific conditions can be framed for the release of the applicant on bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Urmila Pandey
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
