Allowed

Lalita Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2023/351/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application allowed for Lalita Devi, a female accused in a dowry-related case involving death by hanging. The court granted bail after finding no specific allegations against her, no ante-mortem injuries on the victim, and invoking the benefit under Section 437 Cr.P.C. Bail is conditioned on appearing in court and filing undertakings regarding adjournments and misuse of liberty

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions of court attendance and undertaking against misuse of liberty.

Lalita Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 351 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Lalita Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents.

¶6

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Lalita Devi) is languishing in jail since 08.09.2022 in Case Crime No.609 of 2022, under Sections 498-A & 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationKotwali Nanpara, District-Bahraich.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as she has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

¶8

Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein all the family members have been implicated including the present applicant, who is mother-in-law of the victim (since deceased). No specific allegations have been levelled against the present applicant as the general allegations of demanding dowry and torture have been levelled against all the accused persons. The present applicant was having cordial relation with her daughter-in-law (since deceased) and she has never demanded any dowry from her or her family members. The cause of death is hanging.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per the postmortem report, there is no ante-mortem injuries. She being a lady may be given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C.. The present applicant is having no previous criminal history. The charge-sheet has been filed and she undertakes that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order.

¶10

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the aforesaid prayer of learned counsel for the applicant but he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of

¶11

learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the contents and allegations of the F.I.R., other material available on record, cause of death is hanging, as per postmortem report, there is no ante-mortem injuries, no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant, the charge-sheet has been filed and the undertaking of the present applicant that she shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly, the fact that she being a lady may be given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail.

¶13

Let the present applicant (Lalita Devi) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

It is made clear that since the present applicant has been granted bail considering the fact that she is a lady and no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant and she being a lady

¶19

is given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C., therefore, the parity of this order may not be claimed by the other co-accused persons.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid terms, the bail application is allowed.

¶21

Order Date :- 12.1.2023 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Suresh/

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lalita Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalita Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Lakhan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko.

Ravindra Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Lko.

Surendra Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. S.P. C.B.I/a.C.B. Lko.

Shivakant Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Ghanshyam Saroj Vs the State Thru. C.B.I.