Allowed

Harwati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2022BAIL/45722/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a bail application filed by Harwati, the mother-in-law and co-accused in a dowry death case under Sections 498A IPC and 304B IPC. The court noted the cause of death was hanging and ordered bail subject to strict conditions regarding attendance and tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant Harwati on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45722 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Harwati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Muktesh Kumar Singh,Rakesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satish Kumar, learned Brief Holder 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 Harwati, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 85 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Malawan, District - Etah.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the mother -in-law of the deceased Smt. Ragini. It is argued that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the accused persons. It is further argued that the deceased Smt. Ragini was married with Ram Kishan, the son of the applicant. The deceased committed suicide and died, which is suggestive from the post mortem examination report, in which doctor has opined that a single ligature mark on her body without any other mark of injury and the cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. It is argued that the applicant is living separately since the date of marriage of the deceased and her husband as stated in paragraph 14 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It is further argued that the applicant is a lady and she is entitled to get the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that co-accused Ram Kishan, the husband of the deceased is in jail. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is having no criminal history as stated in paragraph 19 of the affidavit and is in jail since 11.05.2021.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments as aforesaid.

¶9

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased; the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of

¶10

ante mortem hanging; the deceased have not received any other bodily injury except for the ligature mark.

¶11

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.

¶12

Let the applicant - Harwati 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 8.2.2022 Nitendra

¶21

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by NITENDRA TIWARI Date: 2022.02.09 14:21:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Harwati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harwati 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

Smt. Prema Devi Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Vs State of U.P.

Praveen Bharti Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Pratap Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Vs State of U.P.