Allowed

Shweta Arora Das v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2020BAIL/38834/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the High Court of Allahabad allowed bail for the applicant, Shweta Arora Das, involved in a case concerning alleged instigation to suicide. The court granted bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties, along with specific undertakings regarding the applicant's conduct during the trial.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail with personal bond and two local sureties subject to specified conditions regarding absence and witness tampering.

Shweta Arora Das Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38834 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Shweta Arora Das Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Ranjan Mishra,Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hitesh Pachori,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Virendra Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge her on bail in Case Crime No. 728 of 2020, under Sections 306, 384, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Tajganj, District Agra.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the FIR Nitin Das aged about 33 years committed suicide. He submits that before 11 years on 11th June, 2011, love marriage of the applicant and deceased was solemnized. After marriage the relationship started messing up and deceased started committing maar peet . Consequently, three cases were lodged against the deceased by the applicant which is annexed as Page No. 202 to 238 of the bail application, namely- 1 Complaint No. 86 of 2019 (Smt. Shweta Das Vs. Nitin Das and 2 others) under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed before the Court of Additiona Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Agra on 06.08.2019. 2. Complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, bearing Case No. 11043 of 2019 (Smt. Shweta Das Vs. Nitin Das and 2 others) on 02.08.2019. 3. Complaint under Section 125 Cr.P.C. bearing Case No. 1418 of 2019 (Smt. Shweta Das Vs. Nitin Das and 2 others) on 24.12.2019. Nitin Das, the deceased also filed a complaint No. 20014619010099, dated 27.07.2019, Complaint No. 3146 of 2019 (Nitin Das vs. Smt. Shweta Das and 3 others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406, 380 & 120-B IPC, Complaint No. 2074 of 2019 (Nitin Das vs. Smt. Shweta Das), under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, dated 20.09.2019. It is also submitted that applicant and other accused used to threat the deceased for sending jail by saying that Baby Rani Maurya Governor, Uttrakhand and B.S. Kapar (I.G.Jaipur) are known to them. It is further submitted that applicant left the matrimonial house and came to her parental

¶8

house and there was no conversation between them, thereafter applicant and his father used to harass the deceased. He submits that deceased before committing suicide had written a suicide note which is annexed as Page No. 23 of the supplementary affidavit and as per suicide note applicant continuously misbehaved, harassed and threatened the deceased and thus had instigated the deceased for committing suicide. He submits that last complaint by the applicant was sent to the police in the month of August, 2019 and near about 13 months thereafter deceased committed suicide. He also submits that on 25.07.2019 a settlement had been arrived between applicant and deceased to live separately. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that there is no criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 29.09.2020.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submit that as per suicide note applicant on one day at mid night started abusing to the mother and pushed her on which deceased gave her 2-3 slaps thereafter applicant locked herself in a room from inside and banged her head on the wall due to which she received injury. It is also submitted that two mobile phones of the deceased was recovered from the house and FSL report is still awaited. He submits that as per paper no 23 annexed with the application a compromise entered between the parties in which they agreed to live separately and after compromise applicant started demanding Rs.25,000,00/- and threatened the deceased to implicate her in a false case stating that her relative is posted on a higher post in government service. He submits that due to continuous harassment and threatening by applicant deceased committed suicide.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, settlement between the applicant and deceased arrived on 25th July, 2019 to live separately, 13 months hereafter happening of the incident without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Shweta Arora Das involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will

¶12

cooperate with the trial. The applicant 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.

¶13

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

¶14

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶17

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.12.2020 Israr

Shweta Arora Das v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shweta Arora Das 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

Sunny Deol Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chintu Alias Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Arun Vs State of U.P. and another

Harprakash Rajpal Arora Vs State of U.P.

Sani Deval Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Yadav Vs State of U.P.