Allowed

Sahiba v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2022BAIL/43170/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the applicant in a case involving dowry-related cruelty charges. The court noted the hostile statement of the first informant, the death of the victim due to mental illness, and her lack of criminal history. The application was allowed subject to specific bail conditions regarding court attendance and procedural adherence.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and conduct during evidence and trial procedures.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43170 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sahiba Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Gautam,Pawan Kumar Shukla

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 74 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Bardah, District- Azamgarh.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. As per the prosecution own case, it is alleged that deceased- Pooja was married to Sechu Saroj @ Satya son of the applicant in the year 2020, however, after the said marriage, the applicant started making additional demand of dowry and for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry, she started torturing and maltreating her and also subjected her to cruelty, on account of which, her sister committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. The information regarding the death of deceased was given to the informant by her in laws. Subsequently, during investigation, it is alleged that the applicant started making demand of golden chain in dowry and for non-fulfilment of which, used to torture her causing her death.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that applicant is the mother in law of the deceased and general and vague allegation has been made against her in the first information report. She had never demanded any dowry nor ever tortured her daughter in law.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the first informant recorded during the course of trial, wherein he has not supported the prosecution story at all and has categorically stated that her sister was married in the year 2020 and her in laws used to live with them happily and they had never demanded any additional dowry from her nor ever tortured or maltreated her or subjected

¶11

her to cruelty for non fulfilment of additional demand of dowry. On the basis of said statement, P.W.-1 was declared hostile. During cross examination, he has not supported the prosecution story and has stated that the first information report was not read to him before its lodging and her sister infact died by consuming poison as she was mentally ill. On his attention being drawn to his statement shown to be recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he has stated that no such statement was given by him to the police. Further in his cross examination, he has stated that from the childhood itself her sister was mentally ill and despite all treatment, her health did not improve and in a fit of frustration earlier also, twice she tried to commit suicide at her house.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that in the backdrop of the said circumstances, prima facie a case for bail is made out. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that co-accused Sukhram Saroj, father in-law of the deceased has already been released on bail by corodinate bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45196 of 2022 vide order dated 12.10.2022.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 25.3.2022 and has no criminal history to her credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial by all means. Charge sheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses, as such, she be released on bail.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶15

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that as per the prosecution own case, it is alleged that deceased- Pooja was married to Sechu Saroj @ Satya son of the applicant in the year 2020, however, after the said marriage, the applicant started making additional demand of dowry and for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry, she started torturing and maltreating her and also subjected her to cruelty, on account of which, her sister committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. The information regarding the death of deceased was given to the informant by her in laws. Subsequently, during investigation, it is alleged that the applicant started making demand of golden chain in dowry and for non-fulfilment of which, used to torture her causing her death. The applicant is the mother in law of the deceased and general and vague allegation has been made against her in the

¶16

first information report. She had never demanded any dowry nor ever tortured her daughter in law. In the statement of the first informant shown to be recorded recorded during the course of trial, he has not supported the prosecution story at all and has categorically stated that her sister was married in the year 2020 and her in laws used to live with them happily and they had never demanded any additional dowry from her nor ever tortured or maltreated her or subjected her to cruelty for non fulfilment of additional demand of dowry. On the basis of said statement, P.W.-1 was declared hostile. During cross examination, he has not supported the prosecution story and has stated that the first information report was not read to him before its lodging and her sister infact died by consuming poison as she was mentally ill. On his attention being drawn to his statement shown to be recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he has stated that no such statement was given by him to the police. Further in his cross examination, he has stated that from the childhood itself her sister was mentally ill and despite all treatment, her health did not improve and in a fit of frustration earlier also, twice she tried to commit suicide at her house. Coaccused Sukhram Saroj, father in-law of the deceased has already been released on bail by corodinate bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45196 of 2022 vide order dated 12.10.2022. Furthermore, the applicant is in jail since 25.3.2022 and has no criminal history to her credit and there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering the evidence. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, prima facie a case for bail is made out.

¶17

Let the applicant- Sahiba be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶18

(1). 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 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.

¶19

(2). The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC.

¶20

(3). 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the

¶21

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.

¶22

(4). 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 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.

¶23

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶24

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶26

The bail application is accordingly allowed.

¶27

Order Date :- 6.12.2022 KU

¶28

Digitally signed by KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.12.07 12:00:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sahiba v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahiba 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

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P. and 3 Other

Pratap Lodhi @ Mukhiya Vs State of U.P.

Satya Bhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anubhav Chaudhary @ Nonu Vs State of U.P.

Kapil Vs State of U.P.

Shahwaj Khan Vs State of U.P.