Allowed

Smt.Vimla v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2020BAIL/38403/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted regular bail to the applicant, a 66-year-old mother-in-law accused of dowry harassment and culpable homicide, finding the case appealing on bail. The judgment imposes strict conditions regarding attendance and requires an undertaking against seeking adjournments.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions regarding court attendance and trial conduct.

Smt.Vimla Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38403 of 2020 Applicant :- Smt.Vimla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶2

Heard Radhey Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶3

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 82 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Jasrathpur, District-Etah is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶4

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the FIR was registered against Deepak Singh (husband) and his all family members. Admittedly the applicant is mother-in-law aged about 66 years. It is contended by the counsel that the marriage was solemnized on 06.05.2018 and the deceased died on account burn injury. Contention raised by the counsel that after performing her last rites, the present FIR was got registered with the allegation of demand of unspecified amount of money. However, in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant in which for the firsts time he states that there was a demand of one Bullet motorcycle. It is further contended by the counsel that the applicant who is lady resided separately, Ration card and Aadhar card has annexed as Annexure-2 to the application, which indicates that the applicant has a separate entity. More over there was a demand of motorcycle and being an old lady she cannot be said tobe beneficiary of additional dowry so demanded. The applicant is in jail since 07.08.2020 and has no criminal antecedents except the present one.

¶5

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 applicant.

¶6

The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.

¶7

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 applicant has made out a fit case for bail.

¶8

Let the applicant Smt.Vimla, 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:-

¶9

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

(iv) THE APPLICANT 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 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶13

(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 APPLICANT.

¶14

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her 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.

¶15

Order Date :- 20.11.2020/Abhishek Sri.

Smt.Vimla v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Vimla 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

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.

Mutura Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Jaswant @ Kalyan Vs State of U.P.