Mutura Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38218 of 2020

Applicant :- Mutura Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicants who are involved in case crime no. 211 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Dhebarua, District - Siddharth Nagar are seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants in support of their application for bail submits that that the son of applicants got married with the deceased on 24.5.2014. From the FIR, it is clear that there was a demand of unspecified amount of additional dowry. The deceased died on account of hanging who is having separate and distinct unit for their residence. Later on during investigation statement of first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it was revealed that a motorcycle was demanded by way of additional demand of dowry. The applicant no.1 is 70 years old whereas the applicant no.2 is a lady of 65 years old.The applicants cannot said to be beneficiary of motorcycle. Moreover, she (deceased) died on account of hanging, there is no dying declaration. Moreover husband is languishing in jail. It is also contended by learned counsel for applicants even after the lapse of almost six years of marriage the couple were issueless and this could be one of the reasons for taking this extreme step. Taking into account interse relationship with deceased copuled with the fact the applicant no.1 is 70 years and applicant no.2 is 65 years old parent-inlaws. The applicants are entitled for bail. The applicants having no criminal history. The applicants is in jail since 11.8.2020 and have no criminal antecedents except the present one.

¶8

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶9

The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of

¶10

bail only. In the totality of the circumstances the married woman who remain issueless must be suffering in a mental pressure as a result she has taken this extreme step of having emulating herself.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicants Mutura Devi and Ram Niwas Yadav , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(i) THE APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶14

(ii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶15

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶16

(iv) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANTS ARE

¶17

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 THE THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶18

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANTS.

¶19

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicants, shall have serious repercussion on their bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.11.2020 Md Faisal

Mutura Devi and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mutura Devi and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Babita Vs State of U.P.

Devendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Prem Singh Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Jatav (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P.

Jaswant @ Kalyan Vs State of U.P.

Smt.Vimla Vs State of U.P.