Allowed

Smt. Haseena v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2019BAIL/4404/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to the applicant charged with dowry death and cruelty, finding her case distinguishable from the husband's while noting co-accused release and lack of specific complicity in dowry demands, subject to standard bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conduct conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 45 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4404 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt. Haseena Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyam Narayan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶3

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

¶4

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 30.4.2018 by Intezar, his daughter Nisha was married to Asif on 22.3.2017 and since after marriage, she was being treated with cruelty for non fulfilment of demand of motorcycle and Rs.1,00,000/- and on 30.4.2018 at about 9:00 a.m. her husband and in-laws along with one Pankaj, caused her death, of which information has been given by some neighbour; that in post mortem report, cause of death has been shown asphyxia due to throttling; 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 motorcycle and Rs.1,00,000/- allegedly demanded, as dowry; that following dispute between husband and wife throttling may have been done by husband and in any case, husband may be responsible for throttling; that case of applicant is distinguishable from husband of deceased; that co-accused Kallu Khan, has been granted by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.3.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9418 of 2019, copy of which has been produced for perusal; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that she will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 6.9.2018.

¶5

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

¶6

Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering complicity of accused, severity of punishment, grant of bail to co-accused, 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.

¶7

Let applicant Smt. Haseena be released on bail in Case Crime No.180 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kithore, District Meerut on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶8

(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.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

Order Date :- 11.3.2019 Tamang

Smt. Haseena v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Haseena 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.

Malti Devi Vs State of U.P.

Deepu @ Prabhat Vs State of U.P.

Sahodara Devi Vs State of U.P.