Allowed

Smt. Phool Mati W/O Late Sri Ram Sawaroop and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2022/5607/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by the mother-in-law and brother-in-law of a deceased in a dowry harassment case involving Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court granted bail considering the nature of injuries indicating suicide, general allegations against co-accused, and parity with the husband already on bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Smt. Phool Mati and Sudhir enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and cooperation.

Smt. Phool Mati W/O Late Sri Ram Sawaroop and Another Vs… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5607 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Phool Mati W/O Late Sri Ram Sawaroop And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Singh,Alok Sharma,Brahmendra Pratap Singh,Sajjad Husain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties and are on the record.

¶6

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

¶7

The applicants, Smt. Phool Mati and Sudhir, have moved the present bail application seeking bail in Session Trial No. 224 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 144 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sohra Mau, District Unnao.

¶8

Contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. The chargesheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no question of the evidence being tampered. He has also invited attention of the Court to the fact that immediately on the date of incident it is the husband of the deceased, applicant who informed the Police and thereafter name of her husband is also there in the Panchnama which goes to show her bona fide. Furthermore he has invited attention of the Court to the postmortem report which does not point towards any foul play, rather it mentions the cause of death as Asphyxia due to antemortem hanging and while mentioning the antemortem injuries it is mentioned that "the ligature mark size 22cm. x 1.5cm. present in front of neck below chin above thyroid cartilage, going backward, obliquely, interrupted 5cm over Ltd. side back of neck", which is indicative of the fact that the ligature does not cover the entire neck. He says that it as a case of suicide, and not any foul play.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. The applicant No. 1 is mother-in-law and applicant No. 2 is brother-in-law of the deceased. There is no specific allegation against them and only

¶10

general allegations of demand of dowry and harassment have been made against all the accused persons including the present applicants. The entire allegations levelled by the prosecution is false and fabricated. They have no concern regarding demand of dowry. The applicants are not the beneficiary of the said demand of dowry.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that on similar footing and on similar allegations the husband of the deceased, who is the son of applicant No. 1 and brother of applicant No. 2, namely Sumer, has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.06.2020 passed in Bail No. 1496 of 2020, therefore, the case of the applicants, who are mother-in-law and brother-in-law of deceased, is not on the worse footing than that of the coaccused, who is the husband of the deceased and has already been granted bail, therefore, the applicants are also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity by this Court sympathetically.

¶12

Several other submissions regarding legality and illegality of the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 applicants that they are ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make themselves available before the court whenever required and are also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon them. The applicants undertake that in case they are released on bail they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicants are not having any criminal history, which fact has been stated in para20 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and they are in jail since 25.04.2022 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the courts, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail, but has not disputed that similarly circumstanced co-accused, Sumer, who is the husband of the deceased, has already been granted bail.

¶14

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 and considering the fact that the applicant No. 1 is the

¶15

mother-in-law and applicant No. 2 is brother-in-law of the deceased and they are not beneficiary of demand of dowry as alleged by the prosecution; general allegation has been made against all the accused persons including the applicant; except one ligature mark no other injury found on the person of the victim; cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging; similarly circumstanced co-accused, Sumer, who is husband of the deceased has already been granted bail; as well as considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicants may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

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

¶17

Let the applicant, Smt. Phool Mati and Sudhir , involved in Session Trial No. 224 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 144 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sohra Mau, District Unnao, be enlarged on bail on their executing a personal bond each and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(5) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(6) The applicants 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

¶24

313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(8) 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.

¶27

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 applicants' bail.

¶28

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 merit of the case.

¶29

Order Date :- 18.8.2022 Mustaqeem

¶30

Digitally signed by MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN Date: 2022.08.23 11:40:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Phool Mati W/O Late Sri Ram Sawaroop and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Phool Mati W/O Late Sri Ram Sawaroop and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

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

Shiva Alias Shiv Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Dharmendra Saroj and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. A.C.S / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Arif S/O Sharif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Puspha Devi W/O Sri Jai Karan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homr Lko

Lallu S/O Karamat (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Manisha Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow