Allowed

Smt. Sunita v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2022BAIL/30370/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant, who was arrested in a dowry-related case involving the death of her daughter-in-law. Finding her role similar to a co-accused already granted bail, the Court held it a fit case for bail subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and trial conduct.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions on court attendance and adherence to trial proceedings.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30370 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Sunita Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ishwar Chandra Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajiv Sisodia

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prem Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 134 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 342, 34 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Saidnagli, District Amroha/J.P. Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further submitted that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. There was no dispute of demand of dowry. There is general allegation against the applicant. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. In postmortem report the cause of the death of the deceased has been shown asphyxia due to hanging. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. The applicant is in jail since 18.6.2022.

¶8

It is further contended that similarly placed co-accused Sukhbir Singh, who is father-in-law of the deceased has already been granted bail by another bench of this court vide orders dated 9.9.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 30161 of 2022 therefore the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

¶9

I have perused the bail order of the co-accused and find that the role assigned to the present applicant is almost similar to that of co-accused person, who has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the application for bail but could not dispute with the aforesaid fact that co-accused Sukhbir Singh has already been granted bail.

¶11

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this

¶12

stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Smt. Sunita, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. 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.

¶15

(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 IPC.

¶16

(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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

¶18

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

Order Date :- 11.11.2022/A.

¶22

Digitally signed by AFAQ AHMAD Date: 2022.11.11 13:22:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Sunita v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunita 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

Suresh @ Paupi Vs State of U.P.

Ritesh @ Vikas Vs State of U.P.

Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P.

Dheeraj Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others