Allowed

Smt. Gomti v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2021BAIL/39324/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the applicant, mother-in-law accused under Sections 498A IPC and 304B IPC in a dowry death case, subject to personal bond and stringent conditions including undertaking against adjournments and presence at key tribunal stages.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by executing personal bond and furnishing sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding attendance and trial conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39324 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Gomti Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Phool Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Phool Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.P.Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sushil Shukla, 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 mother-in-law involved in case crime no.37 of 2020 under Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Chhavani, DistrictKanpur Nagar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.07.2020.

¶7

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that marriage of the deceased with the Sanjai(husband) was solemnized on 11.03.2019. The deceased has died in an unnatural circumstances on 26.06.2020. Thereafter the present FIR came into existence by Virendra Kumar Nishad (Mama of the deceased)/informant with the allegation that there is specific demand of Rs. 3 lakhs and four wheeler by the in-laws of the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to statements of number of witnesses that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself and the cause of death is antemortem hanging. The witnesses in no uncertain terms have clearly stated that after the marriage the husband and wife(deceased) had shifted to Delhi but fifteen days prior to the incident she came and started residing in the partitioned portion. The couple have distinct establishment. The mother-in-law is no say in the internal matter of the husband and wife and the husband could be the best beneficiary of alleged demand of dowry.

¶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

Taking into account the interse relationship and the cause of death, 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. Gomti , 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:-

¶11

(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

¶12

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

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-:

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High

¶23

Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶24

Order Date :- 18.1.2021

¶25

Abhishek Sri.

Smt. Gomti v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gomti 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

Akshay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Asif Vs State of U.P.

Kazim Raja @ Ali Nawab Vs State of U.P.

Gomal Alias Nagendra Vs State of U.P.

Dheerendra @ Dheeru Vs State of U.P.

Ram Pal Vs State of U.P.