Allowed

Smt. Urmila v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2022/1107/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a bail application filed by Smt. Urmila in a case involving dowry harassment and dowry death. The Court granted bail citing parity with co-accused, lack of specific role in dowry demand, and large pendency, relying on appellate precedents regarding 498-A and 304-B IPC cases.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon executing a personal bond and two sureties for the required amount, subject to specific conditions regarding court appearance and non-tampering.

Smt. Urmila Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1107 of 2022 Applicant :- Smt. Urmila Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home Department, Government Of U.P., Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Awasthi,Ashish Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Devendra Pratap Aazad, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 438 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Gola, District Kheri.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated only because she is mother-in-law of the deceased. A general allegation of demand of dowry and torture has been mentioned in the F.I.R as well as in the statements of witnesses recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. The deceased has died by hanging herself and the cause of death has been shown Asphyxia due to anti mortem hanging. Except ligature mark on the neck, no other injury has been found on the body of the deceased.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that after the marriage the deceased was living happily with the husband but after some time she started to make pressure upon her husband for living separately.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the deceased was very short tempered and she used to become annoyed on silly and pity things.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is no specific role regarding demand of dowry was assigned to the applicant and only general role has been assigned and she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case being the family member.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant never ill-treated nor harassed the deceased for demand of dowry nor she ever made any demand of dowry or committed any crime as alleged in the F.I.R.. the applicant

¶11

could not be the beneficiary of the motorcycle, which was being allegedly demanded.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the similarly situated co-accused Mool Chandra (father-in-law), Rajesh (brother-in-law/Jeth) and Jitendra (brother-inlaw/Dewar) have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 17.12.2021, 21.12.2021 and 18.01.2022 passed in Bail No. 14880 of 2021, 15126 of 2021 and 388 of 2022.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that as the role assigned to the applicant is also same and common as have been assigned to the co-accused Mool Chandra, Rajesh and Jitendra, who have been granted bail, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to get the benefit of parity and be enlarged on bail, her case is not on the worst footing than that of the other co-accused, who have been already granted bail by this Hon'ble Court.

¶14

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that she is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make herself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon her. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and she is in jail since 12.11.2021 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶15

Sri Devendra Pratap Azad, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submit that the applicant is involved in the present case.

¶16

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, considering the ground of parity, considering that the applicant is not the beneficiary of the alleged demanded dowry and no specific role regarding demand of dowry was assigned to the applicant and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble

¶17

Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant Smt. Urmila involved in Case Crime No. 438 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Gola, District Kheri, be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶20

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶21

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and her personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶22

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶23

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶24

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure her 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.

¶25

(6) The applicant shall remain present, 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.

¶26

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶27

(8) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the

¶28

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

¶29

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶30

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶31

Order Date :- 10.2.2022

¶32

Arvind

¶33

Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.02.14 16:00:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Urmila v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Urmila v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow

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

Prabhat Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home

Rizwan Ali @ Videshi Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Arvind Kumar Verma @ Arvind Verma Vs State of U.P. through the secretary Home DepT.

Smt Pinki Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. , U.P. Lucknow

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Dept. Lko

Suresh Kumar Pasi Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home