Allowed

Smt. Sudama v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2021BAIL/37164/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to the applicant, the mother-in-law of the deceased, involved in a dowry death case under Sections 304B, 498A IPC. Noting she could not be a beneficiary of dowry and citing parity with the father-in-law, the court released her on personal bond with conditions to be verified later.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond without immediate sureties, to be furnished within a month after court functions resume.

Smt. Sudama Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37164 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Sudama Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Kant Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.84 of 2020, under Section 304B, 498A, 504 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Walterganj, DistrictBasti is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was lodged by one Smt. Kusum against four named accused persons including the applicant. The applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. From the FIR, there is unspecified amount of money and motorcycle was demanded as additional dowry. The fact remains that the deceased died on account of hanging. By no stretch of imagination, mother-inlaw could be said to be the beneficiary of the additional dowry in the shape of motorcycle. It is further submitted that the father-in-law Ram Laut has been admitted on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.20455 of 2020, copy of which has been produced for perusal. In this continuation, parity has also been claimed. The husband is in jail. The case of the husband is distinguishable from the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.04.2020.

¶8

Learned A.G.A 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.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant, Smt. Sudama , who is involved in case crime no.84 of 2020, under Section 304B, 498A, 504 IPC and section

¶11

3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Walterganj, District-Basti, 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.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE 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 HER, 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 HER 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

¶20

applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 4.1.2021 Sumit S

Smt. Sudama v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sudama 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

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sartaj Vs State of U.P.

Mazid Ali Vs State of U.P and Another

Smt. Nanki Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Smt Yashoda Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Bhatt Vs State of U.P.