Allowed

Nirmala v. State of U.P through Its Secretary Home

Allahabad HC26 May 2022BAIL/8229/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to Nirmala, mother-in-law of a deceased, in a dowry death case involving Sections 498A and 406 IPC. The court noted no specific role or torture was assigned to her, finding it a fit case for bail with strict conditions to ensure trial progress.

What did the court decide?

Release on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions regarding court attendance and trial conduct.

Nirmala Vs State of U.P through Its Secretary Home — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8229 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Nirmala Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Its Secretary Home Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra 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 in Case Crime No. 316 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 304B, 316 IPC and section 3.4 D.P. Act, 1961, at Police Station Mohamdabad, District Farrukhabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. There was no dispute of demand of dowry. The applicant has not harassed or tortured to the deceased. It has further been submitted that there is general allegation against the applicant. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. The deceased has committed suicide herself. As per postmortem report the cause of death of the deceased has been shown asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. The applicant is leaving separately from the deceased and her husband at Delhi.The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant and she is in jail since 5.10.2021.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

Let the applicant Nirmala, 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.

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of

¶12

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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶14

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 him, 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 him 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 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 :- 26.5.2022

¶20

¶21

Digitally signed by AFAQ AHMAD Date: 2022.05.26 13:48:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nirmala v. State of U.P through Its Secretary Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala v. State of U.P through Its Secretary Home

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

Sonu Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Aman Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay @ Gulli Vs State of U.P.

Abid Vs State of U.P.

Soni Alias Radha Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P.