Allowed

Vimla Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2023/904/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application filed by Vimla Devi, an accused in a dowry harassment and cruelty case, granting release upon execution of a personal and surety bond subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on execution of a personal bond and two sureties subject to eight conditions including appearance in court and cooperation in trial.

Vimla Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 904 of 2023 Applicant :- Vimla Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of perused the record.

¶5

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Vimla Devi for grant of bail in Case Crime No. 101 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sadarpur, District Sitapur.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and is aged about 53 years and is suffering from various diseases and is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the marriage of the applicant's son with the deceased was solemnized 11 months prior to the date of incident and the relation of the applicant's son with the deceased were cordial, however, there were some minor disputes, which always happens between the husband and wife.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the general allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled against all the accused including the applicant and the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and is not the beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the deceased wants to live in the city Lucknow on denial by the son of the applicant the deceased was living under pressure and stress and on the date of incident she committed suicide by hanging herself in the room.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of

¶11

ante mortem hanging. Except one ligature mark of size 29.7 c.m. x 1.8 c.m. there is no other injury found on the person of the victim. In support of his argument that deceased committed suicide by hanging herself, the learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the extract of Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, wherein definition of hanging has been described. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the definition of hanging given in Modi's Jurisprudence and the postmortem report of the deceased are identical, it appears a case of committing suicide by hanging. He further submits that as per the Modi's Jurisprudence and as per the post-mortem report of the deceased, it is a case of hanging and not the murder or strangulation.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the allegation regarding demand of additional dowry and causing cruelty is false and fabricated. He further submits that no prior complaint by the deceased or by her parents was ever made to any of the authority regarding demand of additional dowry or causing cruelty.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the Investigating Officer after investigating submitted chargesheet against the applicant and his son and husband and dropped the name of Ram Prasad, relative of the applicant, thus the prosecution story creates doubt. The bail of father-in-law has already been granted by this Court vide order dated 21.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12176 of 2022.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 and has submitted that these facts have also been taken cognizance by the Apex Court whereby the Court stated that there are large number of false and frivolous cases lodged against the entire family members of the husband and submitted that there are general allegations against the applicants and therefore giving benefit of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) the applicant is liable to be released on bail.

¶15

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history, which has been explained in para 15 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and the applicant is in jail since 03.04.2022 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration, therefore, the bail application of the applicant may also be considered by this Court sympathetically and she should also be released on bail. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶16

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that the general allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled against all the accused including the applicant and the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and is not the beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry; cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging, except one ligature mark of size 29.7 c.m. x 1.8 c.m. there is no other injury found on the person of the victim; as per the definition of hanging given in Modi's Jurisprudence and the postmortem report of the deceased are identical, it appears a case of committing suicide by hanging and not the murder or strangulation and also considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

¶17

the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed. Let the applicant- Vimla Devi, involved in Case Crime No. 101 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sadarpur, District Sitapur be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶19

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶20

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶21

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶22

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶23

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure his 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

(6) The applicant shall remain present, 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 him in accordance with law.

¶25

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such

¶26

order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶27

(8) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶28

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶29

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.

¶30

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶31

Order Date :- 18.1.2023 Om

¶32

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vimla Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimla Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko.

Ram Raj Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Nawab Singh Vs State Thur. C.B.I.

Nawab Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. C.B.I

Smt. Kinchu Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.