Allowed

Smt. Kusum Singh W/O Vishnu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC24 May 2022/5128/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application wherein the Hon'ble Court enlarged the applicant, mother-in-law of the suicide victim, on bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. The court imposed conditions regarding attendance, legal aid, and restrictions on adjournments.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail along with sureties, subject to undertaking not to seek adjournments, remain present, and not leave India without permission.

Smt. Kusum Singh W/O Vishnu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5128 of 2022

¶2

Applicant :- Smt. Kusum Singh W/O Vishnu Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Prashansa Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶4

Heard Ms. Pratibha Singh, holding brief of Ms. Prashansa Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned A.G.A.-I.

¶5

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant, who is mother-in-law of the victim, is in jail since 23.04.2022 in Case Crime No.146 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 304-B of IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station – Kotwali Ayodhya, District – Faizabad/Ayodhya. 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.

¶6

Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the present applicant as well as her son and her husband have been implicated on the allegations of torturing and demanding dowry. The applicant was having cordial relations with her daughter-in-law and she never demanded any dowry from her or her family members. There has been no allegation of demanding dowry or cruelty w.e.f. February, 2019 when the marriage of her son with the victim had taken place. The cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging. It has been also informed that one suicide note of the victim was recovered wherein she has levelled specific allegation against her husband Vishal Singh and one lady Purnima to the effect that her husband was having relation with such lady. Learned counsel has further submitted that there might be any dispute between husband and wife but so far as the present applicant is concerned, she has been falsely implicated. There is no eye witness account. She has further submitted that the applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and if charge sheet is filed, she shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, therefore, considering the fact that the present applicant being a lady, she may be extended the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.

¶7

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

¶8

for the applicant.

¶9

Without entering into merits of the case, considering the allegations of the FIR which are general in nature, the factum of suicide note wherein the specific allegation has been levelled against the husband, namely, Vishal Singh and the applicant, who is lady, may be extended the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C., I find it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶10

Let applicant- Smt. Kusum Singh 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:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 24.5.2022 /RBS/-

¶17

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶18

Digitally signed by RAM BIR SINGH Date: 2022.05.24 18:26:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Kusum Singh W/O Vishnu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kusum Singh W/O Vishnu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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

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

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

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

Neelam Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Sachin Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

Mohd. Shahid Hussain Alias Mohd. Shahid S/O Mohd. Sattar Ali Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.