High Court Court No. - 11, barred by the text, dismissed a bail application in a case arising under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC, allowing the accused applicant release on bail subject to conditions.
Bail granted with two sureties and written undertaking not to tamper with witnesses or commit new crimes.
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. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 536 of 2023
Applicant :- Ravindra Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Civil Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary of the case.
Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned counsel representing the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicantRavindra Shukla for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.52 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Maharajganj Tarai, District Balrampur, during trial.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.
It is further submitted that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and since the marriage of the deceased with the son of the applicant, they were living separately in the same house and was not having any concern with their affairs and having regard to the fact that the deceased was living separately with her husband (son of the applicant), the applicant could not be fastened with the liability to explain the circumstances, under which the deceased was burnt.
It is also submitted that general role of demand of motorcycle and subjecting the deceased to cruelty in lieu of such demand has been levelled in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, however, by any stretch of imagination, in presence of the husband of the deceased, the applicant, who is father-in-law of the deceased and is an old man, could not be deemed to be the beneficiary of such dowry.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the co-accused of this case has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.43 of 2023 (Puspa Devi vs. State of U.P. & others), therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be granted bail.
It is next submitted that applicant is in jail in this case since 16.09.2022 and he is not carrying any criminal history. There is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer fo bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and having regard to the material/evidence available against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the applicant is the motherin-law of the deceased. The deceased had died otherwise than in normal circumstances (by burning) after one year and two months of her marriage with the son of the applicant. Allegation of demand of motorcycle has been levelled against all the accused persons. It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant could not be beneficiary of the same as he is an old person and was living separately since the marriage of the deceased with the son of the applicant and he was not having any concern with their affairs. Applicant is in jail in this case since 16.09.2022 without any previous criminal history. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.
Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed.
Let the accused/applicant-Ravindra Shukla involved in abovementioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the
investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 11.1.2023 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Suresh/
Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case involving dowry death allegations.
Whether principles of parity apply given that co-accused was already granted bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ravindra Shukla
State Of U.P.
Rajesh Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
