Allowed

Smt. Ram Murti v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Feb 2019BAIL/8593/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a dowry death case where the applicant, accused of instigation, sought release from custody. The court, considering severity of punishment and lack of specific role in demanding dowry, granted bail without commenting on merits. Strict conditions regarding trial attendance and cooperation were imposed.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of cooperation and non-tampering.

Smt. Ram Murti Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8593 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Ram Murti Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hardev Prajapati Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

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

¶6

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 22.5.2018 marriage of Rajani was solemnised with Jitendra about 5 years back and since after marriage she was being treated with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of Apachi motorcycle as dowry and on 10.5.2018 when first informant went to meet his daughter she told him about atrocities of her in-laws and on 12.5.2018 for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry her husband poured kerosene on her upon instigation of his mother and others and put her on fire and during treatment she died on 21.5.2018 and her dying declaration was recorded in Medical College, Aligarh; 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 allegedly demanded, as dowry; that no such dying declaration of deceased was recorded as per Parcha dated 8.8.2018 of case diary, copy at Annexure-6; that in F.I.R. itself role of pouring kerosene of deceased and putting her on fire has been assigned to her husbnad and applicant has been assigned with role of instigation; that case of applicant is distinguishable from Jitendra, husband of deceased; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that she will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 18.12.2018.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed prayer of bail but admitted that in case diary provided to him there is no mention of dying declaration.

¶8

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.

¶9

Let applicant Smt. Ram Murti be released on bail in Case Crime No.352 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kasganj, District Kasganj, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶10

(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.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

Order Date :- 28.2.2019 Kpy

Smt. Ram Murti v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ram Murti v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shani Kumar Kardam Vs State of U.P.

Vimla Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Vs State of U.P.

Mahaveer Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Swaroop @ Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Sriram Upadhyay Vs State of U.P.