Allowed

Smt. Santosh Kumari Shukla W/O Gajendra Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2022/8576/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding dowry death allegations, the High Court granted bail to the applicant. Relying on the precedent set in Dataram Singh, the court considered that since the incident occurred at the deceased's maternal home and her father-in-law was already released, the applicant deserved bail despite heavy trial pendency.

What did the court decide?

The application is allowed; the applicant is to be enlarged on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties.

Smt. Santosh Kumari Shukla W/O Gajendra Shukla Vs State… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8576 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Santosh Kumari Shukla W/O Gajendra Shukla

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dheerendra Kr. Agnihotri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Dheerendra Kr. Agnihotri, the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The applicant, Smt. Santosh Kumari Shukla , has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 1391 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and she has been falsely implicated in this case. The death of the deceased had occurred at her maternal house by consuming poison, as is evident from the postmortem report as well as the forensic lab report, wherein the cause of death of the deceased was not ascertained and in the viscera report, poison (aluminum phosphide) has been found in the viscera of the deceased, which was preserved at the time of postmortem.

¶9

It is further submitted that general allegation of demand of Rs. 10 lacs has been attributed to all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. and no overt act or specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant and even if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face, the incident had occurred at the maternal home of the deceased and it is alleged that the husband of the deceased namely Deepu had gone to the house of the deceased where they had quarreled and thereafter the husband of the deceased namely Deepu had given some noxious/poisonous substance to the deceased, by consuming which, she had died, thus, the allegations are specifically against the husband of the deceased.

¶10

It is also submitted that since the deceased had died at her maternal house, the applicant is not obliged to explain the circumstances leading to her death as the same, as per the story

¶11

of the prosecution, could only be explained by the husband of the deceased. The entire allegations levelled by the prosecution is false and fabricated.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that on similar footing and on similar allegations the father-in-law of the deceased, who is the husband of the present applicant, namely Gajendra Kumar Shukla, has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.08.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8595 of 2022, therefore, the case of the applicant, who is mother-law and husband of the co-accused, Gajendra Kumar Shukla, is not on the worse footing than that of the co-accused, who has already been granted bail by this Court, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of party by this Court sympathetically.

¶13

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 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. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history, which fact has been stated in para-19 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 06.07.2022 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the courts, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶14

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

¶15

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 fact that the incident occurred at the maternal house of the deceased; the allegations are specifically against the husband of the deceased; similarly circumstanced

¶16

co-accused, Gajendra Kumar Shukla, who is the father-in-law of the deceased and husband of the present applicant, has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court 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 applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed. Let the applicant, Smt. Santosh Kumari Shukla , involved in Case Crime No. 1391 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri, be enlarged 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 :-

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

¶23

(6) 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 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 her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶24

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order

¶25

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 applicant's 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 :- 5.8.2022 Mustaqeem

¶30

Digitally signed by MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN Date: 2022.08.12 11:52:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Santosh Kumari Shukla W/O Gajendra Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Santosh Kumari Shukla W/O Gajendra Shukla 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

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

Mahante Alias Chulbul Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.

Kalau Alias Kamla Kant Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Deepak Kumar Major Bail Cancellation Vs State of U.P. and Another

Upendra Alias Opendra Yadav S/O Raj Kishor Vs the State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Abdul Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and 3 Ors.