Allowed

Jagrani W/O Sri Gangaram v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home

Allahabad HC23 May 2022/5117/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to Jagrani W/O Sri Gangaram, mother-in-law of the deceased, in a case involving IPC Sections 498-A and 304-B. The Court held that as the applicant is female and the allegations are general, she should be released on bail with personal bond and sureties under Section 437 Cr.P.C., subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Hero Jagrani W/O Sri Gangaram released on bail with personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to five conditions including court attendance and prohibition of leaving India without permis

Jagrani W/O Sri Gangaram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5117 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jagrani W/O Sri Gangaram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Pati Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri R.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant, who is mother-in-law of the deceased, is in jail since 20.01.2022 in Case Crime/ FIR No.34 of 2022 (Sessions Trial No.1682 of 2022), under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station – Pisawan, District – Sitapur. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as she has not committed any offence as alleged.

¶7

Attention has been drawn towards the FIR, wherein the allegations have been levelled against three persons including the present applicant. No specific role has been assigned to the present applicant. The present applicant was having cordial relations with her daughter-in-law (since deceased) and she never demanded any dowry. Further, she never tortured her daughter-in-law. There is no eye witness account of the incident in question. Cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging. There was no ante-mortem injury on the body of the victim. The applicant being lady, she may be extended the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no apprehension of absconding or tampering the evidence. He undertakes that the applicant shall co-operate with the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.

¶8

Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Without entering into merits of the case, considering the

¶10

allegations of the FIR which are general in nature, charge sheet has been filed and the present applicant being lady, she may be extended the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C., I find it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶11

Let applicant- Jagrani be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶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. 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.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, 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.

¶16

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶17

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶18

Order Date :- 23.5.2022 RBS/-

¶19

Digitally signed by RAM BIR SINGH Date: 2022.05.23 18:34:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jagrani W/O Sri Gangaram v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagrani W/O Sri Gangaram v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home

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

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. through the Principle Secretary Department Od Home, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lko

Chandani and another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary Home Lucknow

Bankey Lal Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Dept of Home U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Chhotkau Singh (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary(Home),Civil Secretariat,Lko

Kafeel Khan S/O Moteen Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home

Chandramani Mishra S/O Parasnath Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.