Allowed

Sheela Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Nov 2019BAIL/47556/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail application for Sheela Devi, alleged to be mother-in-law of deceased who committed suicide. Court recorded lack of specific dowry allegations in FIR but noted investigation revealed demand. Bail granted with conditions to not tamper with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47556 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sheela Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mukti Nath Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

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

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is mother in law of the deceased and he has no concern with the present matter. No specific allegation has been levelled in the FIR. What sort of dowry was being demanded has also not been made clear in the FIR. In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as an after thought this fact was added. Deceased committed suicide herself. She is languishing in jail since 18.7.2019 and in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. Applicant has no criminal history.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant argued that although nothing is disclosed in the FIR about the nature of demand but during investigation same was made clear. Applicant was involved in raising demand of dowry and causing cruelty and due to that reason deceased committed suicide.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶9

Let the applicant Sheela Devi involved in Case Crime No. 235 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/ 4 D. P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions :

¶10

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 13.11.2019

¶15

Sachdeva

Sheela Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela Devi 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

Harishchandra Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Munni Devi Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Singh @ Betu Vs State of U.P.

Raj Narain Vs State of U.P.

Matlubun Nisha Vs State of U.P.