Allowed

Sunita Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2022BAIL/4164/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to Sunita Devi, applicant's cousin mother-in-law of the deceased, in a dowry death case involving asphyxia by hanging. The Court found no convincing material suggesting evidence tampering and noted the co-accused father-in-law had been granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to attend trial and not tamper with evidence.

Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4164 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sunita Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pawankumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Sunita Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 632 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304B, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Powayan, District Sjahjahanpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the cousin mother-in-law (chachiya saas) of the deceased Smt. Pushpa. It is argued that the general and omnibus role has been assigned to all the accused persons without any specification therein. It is argued in the postmortem report a single injury being a ligature mark has been found on the body of the deceased and the doctor has opined the cause of death due to antimortem hanging. It is argued that co-accused Khushiram the father-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.12.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 53023 of 2021 (Khushiram Vs. State of U.P.). Copy of the order is annexed as annexure 6 to the affidavit. It is further argued that the applicant is living separately from the deceased and her husband as stated in para 13 of the affidavit and annexure 5 has also been placed for the same. It is argued that the applicant has a criminal history of one other case in which she was falsely implicated. Para 7 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. The applicant is in jail since 21.10.2021. It is argued that the applicant is a lady and she is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that co-accused Khushiram the father-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail.

¶9

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the mother-in-law (chachiya saas) of the deceased. The cause of death is asphyxia as result of antimortem hanging. No other bodily injury has been found on the body of the deceased except for a ligature mark.

¶10

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Sunita Devi , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond 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:-

¶12

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

(iii) 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

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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 I.P.C.

¶16

(V) 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 and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC.

¶17

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

The bail application is allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 14.2.2022 M. ARIF

¶21

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD ARIF Date: 2022.02.14 17:14:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunita Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita 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

Suraaj Khan @ Suraaj Malik Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Jaswanti Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Kumar Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. thr. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. and another

Vishal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vikas Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Dubey @ Kallu Dubey Vs State of U.P.