Allowed

Smt. Kinni Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 May 2022BAIL/20398/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application filed by Smt. Kinni Devi in a misuse case involving Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act was allowed. The High Court observed that the applicant had no criminal history and made out a prima facie case for bail, directing her to furnish a personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in like amount to the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to specific undertakings.

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

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20398 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Kinni Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Yadav,Ajay Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant, Smt. Kinni Devi, who is involved in Case Crime No. 193 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Hafizpur, District- Hapur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is further submitted that only general allegations have been made against the applicant. It has been further submitted that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The father of the deceased in his statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that only the husband was responsible for the death of the deceased. It has been submitted that the cause of death has been shown to be asphyxia due to hanging in the post mortem report and also there was no ante-mortem injury found on the body of the deceased. It has also been submitted that as per the proviso of Section 437 Cr.P.C. the applicant ought not to be put behind the bars. It has been further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. Further submission is that the charge sheet has been submitted and no further investigation is required. Therefore, if the applicant is released on bail, there is no chance of her absconding or

¶8

misusing the liberty of bail or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not deny the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶10

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant, Smt. Kinni Devi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

(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 the court.

¶13

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.

¶14

(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 Panel Code.

¶15

(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. be issued and if the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date

¶16

fixed on such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Panel Code.

¶17

(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 charges and (iii) recording of statement under Section 323 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 an abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 23.5.2022 PK

¶19

(Siddhartha Varma,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.05.24 16:32:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Kinni Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kinni Devi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Rizwan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Gajendra Singh @ Jhandu Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep@ Golu Vs State of U.P.