Allowed

Kiran Devi@ Ramwati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Mar 2022BAIL/37933/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application under 498A and 304B IPC regarding a dowry death, the court allowed the bail of the accused mother-in-law. The court held that custodial arrest was not necessary and granted bail upon furnishing bonds and undertakings regarding court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Release of Kiran Devi on bail with personal bonds and two sureties upon furnishing specific undertakings regarding court attendance.

Kiran Devi@ Ramwati Vs State of U.P. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37933 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Kiran Devi@ Ramwati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Prakash Pandey,Achyuta Nand Pandey,Omvir Singh Rajpoot Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashvni Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant in Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Mr. Omveer Singh, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for the state.

¶7

This application for bail has been filed by the applicant Kiran Devi @ Ram seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 55 of 2021, under Section 498A and 304B I.P.C. and Section ¾ D.P. Act, P.S. Chharra, District Aligarh, during pendency of trial.

¶8

Perused the record.

¶9

It transpires from the record that marriage of Chandrabhan son of the applicant was solemnized with Sapna on 13.5.2019 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. However, just after expiry of a period of one year from the date of marriage Chandrabhan son of applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 30.3.2021 in which the daugther-in-law of the applicant Sapna died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. The information regarding aforesaid incident was given by Tehsildar of the concerned Tehsil at the concerned police station. On the aforesaid information, the inquest of the deaceased was conducted on 30.3.2021. In the opinion of Panch witnesses, the nature of death of the deaceased was suicidal. Thereafter, the post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on the next date, i.e., on 31.3.2021. In the opinion of autopsy surgeon, cause of death of the deceased was axphysia as result of antemortem hanging. The autopsy surgeon found following antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased:

¶10

"1. Contusion of size 0.3cm x 0.2 cm on the left side of forehead.

¶11

2. Ligature mark in front of neck going backward having a gap

¶12

of 0.3cm between both end of ligature. Rt. side 0.4 cm, distance from chin 0.5 cm Tetal in 2.2 cm of ligature mark."

¶13

Thereafter, the first informant Chandra Bhan Singh (father of the deceased) lodged an F.I.R. dated 30.3.2021 which was registered as Case Crime No. 55 of 2021 under Section 498A and 304B I.P.C. and Section ¾ of D.P. Act, P.S. Chharra, District Aligarh. In the aforesaid F.I.R., six persons namely Indrapal Singh, Kiran Devi, Chandrabhan, Brijesh, Dinesh and Jasoda have been nomitated as named accused.

¶14

The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is that the marriage of Sapna (daughter of first informant) was solemnized with Chandrabhan on 13.5.2019. The F.I.R. further states that physical cruelty was committed upon the daughter of the first informant. Subsequently, an additional demand of dowry to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs was raised and on account of non-fulfilment of the same, physical and mental cruelty is alleged to have been committed upon the deceased. The daughter of the first informant was assaulted on 30.3.2021.

¶15

During course of investigation, Investigation Officer examined first informant and about 40 witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by him during course of investigation, which is substantially adverse to some of the accused, he submitted charge-sheet dated 23.5.2021, whereby three of the named accused namely Brijesh, Dinesh and Jasoda have been exculpated whereas Indrapal (father-in-law), Kiran Devi (mother-in-law) and Chandrabhan (husband) of the deceased, have been chargesheeted under Section 498A and 304 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act.

¶16

Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and named as well as chargesheeted accused but she is innocent. Allegations made in the F.I.R. with regard to additional demand of dowry and commission of physical and mental cruelty upon the deceased on the ground of non-fulfilment of additional demand of dowry are false and concocted. It is then contended that the applicant is a middle age lady. Placing reliance upon the proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for applicant contends that since applicant is a lady, she is liable to be enlarged on bail. It is then contended that allegations made in F.I.R. with regard to additional demand of dowry do not relate to the applicant but to the husband of the deceased. As such, applicant cannot be said to be the beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry. The deceased was a short-tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself.

¶17

Bonafide of the applicant is also explicit from the fact that the except for the ligature mark, no other ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. Up to this stage, there is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be definitely inferred that applicant has even abeted in the commission of the alleged crime. Applicant has clean antecedents inasmuch as she has no criminal history to her credit except the present one. It is further submitted that prior to the incident, the deceased was separately residing with her husband Chandrabhan at District Sonipat. The charge-sheet has already been submitted. As such, the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. Therefore, custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary during the course of trial. It is thus urged that applicant be enlarged on bail. It is lastly submitted that applicant is in jail since 14.5.2021 as such she has undergone more than 10 months of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶18

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for bail. He contends that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and she is a named as well as charge-sheeted accused. Therefore, she does not deserve any sympathy of this Court. However, learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual and legal submission urged by learned counsel for applicant.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as the complicity of applicant and accusation made but without making any comment on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant Kiran Devi@ Ramwati be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

(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.

¶22

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE

¶23

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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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 THE HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶26

(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.

¶27

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶28

Order Date :- 30.3.2022 CS/-

¶29

Digitally signed by CHANDAN SINGH Date: 2022.04.01 17:17:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kiran Devi@ Ramwati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Devi@ Ramwati 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

Satish Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Shamshad Vs State of U.P.

Sushil Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Vs State of U.P.

Jeetu @ Ravendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Gupta Vs State of U.P.