Allowed

Smt. Guddi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2022BAIL/2058/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the bail application of the applicant, Smt. Guddi, charged with abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC. The court noted lack of evidence regarding instigation by the applicant and a compromise in the matrimonial dispute, deeming it a fit case for bail without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding tampering, intimidation, and attendance.

Smt. Guddi Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2058 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Guddi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Niraj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Niraj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State are present and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Smt. Guddi under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 553 of 2021 for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police StationNajibabad, District- Bijnor, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bijnor vide order dated 24.12.2021.

¶7

Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 14.10.2021 has been lodged against the applicant and four other co-accused persons under Sections 302 and 120B of I.P.C. stating therein that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with daughter of the applicant about one year prior to the incident. There is a matrimonial discord between the daughter of the applicant and deceased and a matrimonial dispute is pending in the district court. On 11.10.2021 at about 02:00 P.M. brother-in-law (Sadhu) co-accused Mukesh took the deceased from the house of the first informant. On 12.10.2021 at about 07:00 A.M. an information was received from Nazibabad Police Station that son of the first informant had died in Khidripura. It is further alleged that the applicant and other co-accused persons on the basis of criminal conspiracy committed the said offence.

¶8

Before lodging of the first informant report, an information of death has been given by the resident of village Bahadpur Jat @ Khidripura at 08:42 hours and conducted inquest proceedings by the Police on 12.10.2021 at the place of recovery and postmortem of the deceased has been conducted on 12.10.2021 at 09:40 P.M. As per the postmortem report of the deceased, the injury has been found as an abrasion size of 12 X 4 cm over the medial border of right scapula, the cause of death could not be

¶9

ascertained and the viscera preserved in forensic examination.

¶10

During the course of investigation, statement of first informant and other witnesses has been recorded and after completion of the investigation charge sheet has been submitted on 25.12.2021 against the applicant and other co-accused persons except co-accused Mukesh, under Section 306 of I.P.C. The applicant was arrested on 12.10.2021.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. As per the allegations levelled in the first information report as well as statement of the first informant recorded under Sections 161 of Cr.P.C. son of the first informant had died after taking pills of Salphos. He further submitted that son of the first informant committed suicide on abetment of the applicant and other co-accused persons but there is no evidence has been collected about the instigate/ abetment to the deceased. It is further submitted that a compromise in matrimonial dispute has taken place between the daughter of the applicant and deceased.

¶12

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.

¶13

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. 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.

¶14

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

¶15

(a) The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased.

¶16

(b) As per the statement of first informant recorded under Sections 161 of Cr.P.C. son of the first informant had died after taking pills of Salphos.

¶17

(c) No evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer about the instigate/ abetment to the deceased by the applicant.

¶18

(d) A compromise of matrimonial dispute has taken place between the daughter of the applicant and deceased prior to the incident.

¶19

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, his role and involvement in the offence, his 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. Guddi 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 such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

Order Date :- 7.2.2022 Ishan

¶34

Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.02.10 11:45:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Guddi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Guddi 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

Raju @ Rishipal @ Rishi Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar@ Shibbo Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Vs State of U.P.

Gopi Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Dharam Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P.