Allowed

Kalawati W/O Ram Naresh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2022/7449/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7449 of 2022, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to Kalawati, an old lady and mother-in-law accused in cases under Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found she was not a beneficiary of the alleged dowry demand, the death appeared to be hanging, and relied on Supreme Court precedents to grant release.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is enlarged on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding appearance, cooperation, and no tampering with evidence.

Kalawati W/O Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7449 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kalawati W/O Ram Naresh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sharvan Kumar Pandey,Km. Anjali Gautam

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sharvan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shishir Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The applicant, Kalawati has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.145 of 2021, under Sections 498-A,304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Malhipur District Shravasti.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. No such demand of ever made at the time of marriage or after the marriage by the deceased and her family members.The allegation of additional demand of dowry against the applicant is false only with the intention to falsely implicated the applicant alongwith his son. The marriage with the son and deceased took place three years back from the date of incident. It is also argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not beneficiary with the alleged additional dowry which was demanded. The relation with the deceased, who is the daughter-in-law of the applicant was cordial. There was some minor dispute with the husband and the deceased was short tempered lady and she always insist the son of the applicant to live separately to some other place. Further, the deceased is suffering from depression due to reason the marriage was solemnized before three years but no baby was born and when she was alone then committed suicide by handing herself. As per the postmortem report the cause of death as asserted by doctor is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging and is only one injury i.e. ligature mark 22x0.5 cm present in front of neck and going both side treacle of neck 6 cm below left ear, 7 cm below right ear, 5 cm below mid of chin, gapping of ligature mark 11 cm right side below ear,

¶9

no any other external injury seen all over body except ligature mark. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the extract of Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, wherein definition of hanging has been described and as per the postmortem report of the deceased it is identical to the definition of hanging given in Modi's jurisprudence and therefore it is a case of hanging and not strangulation or murder.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 and has submitted that these facts have also been taken cognizance by the Apex Court whereby the Court stated that there are large number of false and frivolous cases lodged against the entire family members of the husband and submitted that there are general allegations against the applicants and therefore giving benefit of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) the applicant is liable to be released on bail.

¶11

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 he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history, which has been explained in para 13 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and the applicant is in jail since 25.06.2021 and she has already undergone a substantial period of detention, therefore, the bail application of the applicant may also be considered by this Court sympathetically and he should also be released on bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in heinous crime.

¶13

After considering the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record this Court find that the applicant who is the mother-in-law is not the beneficiary of the additional demand of dowry. She is an old lady. Further the cause of death as per the postmortem report as asserted by doctor is asphyxia due

¶14

to ante-mortem hanging and as per the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence wherein the definition of hanging has been described and the postmortem report given by the doctor appears to be identical so it is case of hanging and not strangulation or murder. A general allegation has been levelled against the accused person and there is no specific allegations levelled against the applicant and further considering the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and also the 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 UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

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

¶16

Let the applicant- Kalawati involved in Case Crime No.145 of 2021, under Sections 498-A,304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Malhipur District Shravasti be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(6) The applicant shall remain present, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)

¶23

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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

Order Date :- 24.8.2022

¶29

dk/

¶30

Digitally signed by DEVENDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.08.26 17:32:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kalawati W/O Ram Naresh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalawati W/O Ram Naresh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Thru. the S.P. CBI Spl.Police Establishment Vs Ram Nath Singh and 02 Ors.

Smt. Kamla Devi Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

State of U.P. Vs Kamal Kishore

U.O.I. Thru. Superintendent of Police C.B.I./a.C.B. Lucknow Vs N.K. Srivastava Nand Kishore Srivastava

Mukesh Kumar Guad Vs State of U.P Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others