Allowed

Smt. Sushma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 May 2022BAIL/13821/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed by the mother-in-law of a deceased woman accused under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act for murder by hanging. Despite serious allegations and the nature of the offence, the court deemed the applicant a fit case for bail without expressing an opinion on the merits, subjecting her to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding trial attendance and non-interference with witnesses.

Smt. Sushma Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13821 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Sushma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bijay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Bijay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vishwadeepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Smt. Sushma under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 494 of 2017, for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station- Rajapur, District- Chitrakoot, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot vide order dated 18.01.2022.

¶7

Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 23.11.2017 has been lodged by father of the deceased against the applicant and three other named persons stating therein that marriage of his daughter Roshini was solemnized with co-accused Anoop, who is son of the applicant on 21.04.2017. On 22.11.2017 at about 07:00 P.M. applicant and co-accused persons committed murder of his daughter by hanging. It is further alleged that applicant and another coaccused persons harassed his daughter due to additional demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The information about the alleged incident was received by the first informant in the night over telephone.

¶8

After lodging of the first information report, inquest proceedings of the person of the deceased has been conducted on 23.11.2017 at 17:40 hours.; postmortem of the person of the deceased has been conducted on the same day at 04:30 P.M. As per inquest as well as postmortem reports, except ligature mark no other external injury has been found on the person of the deceased. The cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging. Time of death 1/2 day prior to the postmortem. After recording the statement of prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., charge sheet has been submitted by the Investigating

¶9

Officer against the applicant and other co-accused persons on 18.12.2018. The applicant was arrested on 04.01.2022.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. It is further submitted that as per statement of the first informant, marriage of his daughter was solemnized on 20.04.2015 with co-accused Anoop but actually the marriage of his daughter was solemnized on 21.04.2014 and out of their wedlock one male child was born. It is further submitted that general allegation of demand of dowry, harassment and made cruelty has been levelled against the applicant. No specific role has been attributed against the applicant. It is next contended that except ligature mark no other external injury has been found on the person of the deceased.

¶11

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶14

(a) Applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased;

¶15

(b) General allegation of demand of dowry, harassment and made cruelty has been levelled against the applicant;

¶16

¶17

(d) Except ligature mark no other external injury has been found on the person of the deceased;

¶18

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, her role and

¶19

involvement in the offence, her involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶20

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶21

Let applicant, Smt. Sushma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶22

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶24

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶25

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶26

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel.

¶27

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

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat

¶29

such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

¶30

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶31

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶32

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶33

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.

¶34

Order Date :- 18.5.2022 Ishan

¶35

Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.05.20 15:58:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Sushma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sushma v. State of U.P.

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

Rajan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Siraj Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Noor Jahan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Pappu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogendra Giri and Another Vs State of U.P.