Single-bench Criminal Misc. Bail Application in a case under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act where the FIR alleged dowry death. The Court allowed bail despite opposition from the State, deeming the applicant's case made out.
Release of applicant on personal bond and two local sureties subject to conditions of court presence and conduct.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56472 of 2022
Applicant :- Sangeeta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Anuj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sangeeta with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No.106 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 304-B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Dhanari, District-Sambhal, during pendency of trial.
The first information report (FIR) has been lodged by mother of the deceased with the allegations that her daughter was done to death by burning her on 02.05.2020 at about 12 O'clock due to non fulfillment of additional dowry demands.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is mother-in-law. She has neither raised any demand of dowry nor harassed the deceased for the same. As per the postmortem report, the death is as a result of antemortem thermal burn. From the injuries which are superficial to deep thermal burn all over the body except both soles, both legs, both buttocks, back of head, abdomen shows that the same is an accidental case.
He has emphasized on page 43 of the application, wherein, in the Majid statement of the informant, it has been mentioned that the deceased sustained burn injuries while cooking which resulted in her death. It has also been stated that at the time of incident the applicant was working in the fields and was not present at the place of incident. In this backdrop, he submits that the FIR has been lodged under some misconception. The applicant is languishing in jail since 07.10.2022. The applicant does not have any previous criminal history. In case, she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant-Sangeeta involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) 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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 16.12.2022 A. Pandey
Digitally signed by ANAND PANDEY Date: 2022.12.19 13:07:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case involving Sections 498A and 304-B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
Whether pre-trial innocence bars the grant of bail in dowry-related cases.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Sangeeta
State of U.P.
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Manju Rani Chauhan
Parties & counsel
