The court allowed a bail application filed by Smt. Sunita in a case involving dowry harassment and suicide, citing the need to keep dockets moving while mandating strict conditions to prevent evidence tampering.
Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions, including non-tampering with evidence and cooperation in trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20061 of 2021
Applicant :- Smt. Sunita Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.45 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304 B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Achhnera, District Agra, during pendency of the trial.
As per prosecution version two daughters of informant, namely Rubi and Kajal married with two sons of applicant, namely Shivam and Satyam. The informant alleged that applicant and other family members have tortured the deceased/victim for bringing the dowry and the applicant is responsible to force her daughter to commit suicide.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is mother-in-law of deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case; there is no allegation regarding demand of dowry; the story of demand of dowry is not possible as two daughters of the informant are married to applicant's two sons on the same day and making dowry demand from one daughter and no demand from other daughter whereas no four wheeler has been given to either of the sons; the applicant neither demanded a four wheeler in dowry nor she ever harassed the deceased/victim. It is further argued that deceased was not happy with this marriage; there is no evidence regarding cruelty and even demand made by the applicant. It is next argued that from the statement of independent witnesses, namely Bahoran Singh, Pradeep, Ram Das and Pratap Singh, it is clear that deceased had committed suicide and the applicant has no concern with the dispute between husband and wife. Moreover, there is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant is not a previous convict. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.02.2021 and in case she is enlarged on bail she will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as counsel for the informant opposed the bail application and argued that on account of
dowry demand, victim/deceased was upset and when demand was not fulfilled, then the applicant with other co-accused persons done to death the victim. Deceased died in the house of applicant in unnatural circumstances within seven years of their marriage.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the mandate laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Smt. Sunita, who is involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on her 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 2.12.2021
Meenu
Digitally signed by Justice Deepak Verma Date: 2021.12.04 18:03:48 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant charged under Sections 498-A, 304 B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act.
Whether the applicant has made out a case for bail considering the nature of offence and lack of previous conviction.
Whether the bail conditions should be framed to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure cooperation in trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶11
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Smt. Sunita
State Of U.P
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Deepak Verma
Parties & counsel
