Allowed

Smt. Rukhsana v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2019BAIL/48670/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to Smt. Rukhsana, applicant in criminal miscellaneous bail application, in a case involving Section 498-A and 304-B IPC, after considering that she was falsely implicated and has no specific role assigned in the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering with evidence and intimidation of witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48670 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Rukhsana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Ker Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of complainant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first information report of the alleged incident has been lodged against six persons including the applicant making general allegation. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. In the F.I.R. it has been mentioned that demand of Rs. 50,000/and one motorcycle in additional dowry, the applicant and other co-accused harassed and tortured the deceased. The applicant is not beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry. The applicant is jethani of the deceased. The applicant was living separate from the deceased and her husband. She has no concern with the alleged incident and has been falsely implicated in this case. In post mortem report the cause of death of the deceased has been shown asphyxia due to strangulation. Only ligature mark has been found on the body of the deceased. Except ligature mark no other injury has been found on the body of the deceased. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. Shakeel and Collector who are uncles of the deceased have not disclosed the name of applicant. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of the husband of the deceased. The applicant is a lady. There is no criminal history of the applicant and is in jail since 27.9.2019.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that after the death of mother-in-law, the applicant is the head of the family. At the time of alleged incident, the applicant was living in the same house. The deceased was harassed and tortured due to non fulfilment of demand of dowry. The applicant has committed the alleged offence, therefore, she is not entitled for bail.

¶9

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Smt. Rukhsana involved in Case Crime No.457 of 2019, under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station Gulaothi District Bulandshahar be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;

¶11

The applicant will not tamper with the evidences.

¶12

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and she will cooperate with the trial.

¶13

The applicant will appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

¶14

In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.12.2019 Gss

Smt. Rukhsana v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rukhsana 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit @ Sonu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sajivan Vs State of U.P.

Shri Ram Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Prem Vs State of U.P.

Preet Vs State of U.P.

Satywati Vs State of U.P.