Allowed

Urmila Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2022BAIL/44848/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court bail application under Section 439 CrPC was allowed in a dowry-related death case. The court granted bail to the mother-in-law subject to strict conditions regarding trial attendance and behavior, noting the investigation was complete and a co-accused had already been released.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail via personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions regarding trial attendance and conduct.

Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44848 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Urmila Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Singh Yadav,Rohit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 during the trial in Case Crime No. 80 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act, P.S. Baresar, District Ghazipur.

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that applicant is mother-in-law of deceased. It is stated that the entire family has been implicated on the allegations of demand of dowry without any substance. It is further submitted that there are general allegations with no specific role assigned. There is omnibus allegation against the present applicant regarding demand of dowry and harassment. The investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed in the matter. It is next contended that cause of death of deceased was found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and no injury was found on the person of the deceased. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 11.07.2022. Charge-sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, hence it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.

¶8

It is next submitted that co-accused Chhangur @ Niraj has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated21.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36694 of 2022, therefore, applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

Let the applicant- Urmila Devi, 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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 10.11.2022/RavindraKSingh

¶21

Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.10 16:51:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Urmila Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila 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

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

Smt. Nisso Vs State of U.P.

Surjeet Singh Vs State of U.P.

Suresh @ Paupi Vs State of U.P.

Ritesh @ Vikas Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Giri Vs State of U.P.