Allowed

Smt. Rajvati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2022BAIL/50544/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC with 3/4 DP Act provisions, the High Court granted bail to the applicant, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased accused no specific dowry demand was alleged against her. The Court framed conditions ensuring her presence and timely trial.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions of attendance and trial conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50544 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Rajvati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Kumar Singh,Shailendra Pratap Subodh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.285 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Ghosi, District Mau.

¶7

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant-accused is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. There are general allegations of demand of dowry against all the accused persons including the applicant. No specific allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled against the present accused. The applicant has never demanded for additional dowry nor she harassed or tortured the deceased. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.08.2022 having no previous criminal history and in case applicant is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the law laid down in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Smt. Rajvati involved in the aforesaid case

¶11

be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 15.11.2022

¶20

Ajeet

¶21

Digitally signed by AJEET KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.11.15 15:16:37 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Rajvati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajvati 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Munesh Vs State of U.P.

Pritam Tripathi Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Harihar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Akash Vs State of U.P.