Allowed

Reeta @ Sunita and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2020BAIL/41452/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to applicant Reeta @ Sunita and Ramanuj in a prosecution under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. Bail granted on personal bond pending court restoration, conditioned against adjournments and prosecution attendance lapses.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on bail by personal bond without sureties conditionally until courts resume normal functioning.

Reeta @ Sunita and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41452 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Reeta @ Sunita And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Shankar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Shiv Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.

¶6

The applicants are jeth and jethani of the deceased facing prosecution in Case Crime No. 434 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.-Manda, DistrictAllahabad and are in jail since 20.05.2020.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that one Shyam Lal has lodged the F.I.R. against the husband Ankit Kumar and his family members with the allegation that the deceased got married with Ankit Kumar on 20.05.2019. On 26.12.2019 all the accused persons assaulted upon the deceased and got her hand fractured. Though there is nothing in the postmortem report to corroborate this allegation. However, the deceased died on 26.12.2020. The post-mortem report reveals that she died on consumption of some poisonous substance. It has been contended that the applicants are jeth and jethani, separately resides having a distinct family all together. The husband is languishing in jail. There is no dying declaration or suicide note left by the deceased.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Taking into account the way and the manner in which the deceased has died and that the viscera has been preserved and report is still awaited, let the applicant Reeta @ Sunita and Ramanuj , who are involved in aforementioned case be released

¶11

on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

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

¶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 HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶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., 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, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶15

(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 HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶16

(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.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶20

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶21

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

¶22

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 2.12.2020 Sunil Kr. Gupta

Reeta @ Sunita and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reeta @ Sunita and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Atul Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Gupta Vs Stat

Dasrath @ Bhaggulal Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Anupam Pathak and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.