Allowed

Smt Ranno Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2020BAIL/13659/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail application by the mother-in-law of a deceased woman who alleged suicide. The court allowed bail in the absence of a dying declaration or eyewitnesses despite severe allegations, granting a personal bond with two sureties and imposing conditions regarding court attendance and adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including attendance at trial stages and no adjournments.

Smt Ranno Devi Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13659 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt Ranno Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mushir Khan

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶5

As per the Office report dated 21.8.2020, an urgency application has been moved on behalf of the applicant in the present bail application through e. mail. The said urgency application has been placed before this Court along with the record today in the cause list of fresh cases through e-court.

¶6

Perused the urgency application. The same stands allowed. The Court thus proceeds to hear the matter.

¶7

Heard Sri N.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mushir Khan, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State through Video Conferencing .

¶8

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The marriage between the deceased and applicant's son, namely, Ajeet Sharma was solemnized two months prior to the incident. He submits that the applicant is 40% handicapped. Only general allegation has been levelled against the applicant. There is no dying declaration against the applicant nor there is any eye witness account of the incident. He submits that the husband of the deceased was working as a labourer in a factory at Gujrat but due to spread of pandemic COVID-19, the said factory was closed so he returned back and became unemployed on account of which the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. As per the post mortem report the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. The husband of the deceased is in jail. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent. The applicant is in jail since 6.4.2020.

¶9

Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the deceased died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home within two months of marriage. So far as 40% disability of the applicant is concerned, there is no evidence to that effect annexed with the present petition to which learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has annexed the disability certificate with the rejoinder affidavit as annexure-2 to the rejoinder affidavit but he could not file the rejoinder affidavit.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the rejoinder affidavit in the Registry of this Court after serving copy of the same to the learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. as soon as the Court resume its normal working.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in

¶12

support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶13

Let the applicant Smt. Ranno Devi involved in Case Crime No. 61 of 2020 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Merapur, District Farrukhabad be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

¶14

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶18

The case of the applicant is distinguishable from co-accused Ajeet Sharma.

¶19

The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶20

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶21

Order Date :- 21.8.2020 Shiraz

¶22

Digitally signed by Justice Ramesh Sinha Date: 2020.08.21 17:23:45 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Ranno Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ranno 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

Zeeshan Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Hasan @ Bhura Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra @ Monu Vs State of U.P.

Veer Singh Vs State of U.P.