Allowed

Ketuka @ Ketuki v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2023/71/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. granted bail in a criminal case involving Section 304-B, 498-A IPC, and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court noted general allegations against all accused but no specific charge against the applicant, who furnished an undertaking to cooperate.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including presence in court, no unauthorized absence, and no leaving India without permission.

Ketuka @ Ketuki Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 71 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Ketuka @ Ketuki Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajat Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 22.09.2022 in Case Crime No.555 of 2022, under Sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station – Pihani, District – Hardoi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant, who is mother-in-law of the victim (since deceased), has been falsely implicated in the case as she has not committed any offence as alleged. In the FIR, allegations have been levelled against eight accused persons including the present applicant. Allegations of demand of dowry and assault have been levelled against all accused persons. No specific allegation has been levelled against the present applicant. As a matter of fact, relation of the present applicant was cordial with her daughter-in-law and she has never demanded any dowry from her or her family members. Charge sheet has been filed. Learned counsel has given undertaking on behalf of the applicant that the applicant shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.

¶8

Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the fact that in the FIR, general allegation has been levelled against all accused persons, no specific allegation has been levelled against the present applicant, charge sheet has been filed and the aforesaid undertaking given on behalf of the applicant, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶10

Let applicant- Ketuka alias Ketuki be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶16

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶17

Order Date :- 5.1.2023 RBS/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ketuka @ Ketuki v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ketuka @ Ketuki 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

Rajendra Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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

Saurabh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Manju Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Others

Rani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Secrt. Lko.