Allowed

Smt. Satyawati @ Satto v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2023ABAIL/10531/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for anticipatory bail under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 IPC and D.P. Act relating to a 1996 dowry death case was allowed subject to personal bond and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- each and two sureties of the same amount before the court concerned subject to conditions regarding availability for interrogati

Smt. Satyawati @ Satto Vs State of U.P.and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10531 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Satyawati @ Satto Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Sharma,Kapil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

01.Heard Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the papers on record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case no.2542 of 1999, Silsila No.09 of 1996, under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 of I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District Etawah.

¶7

As per prosecution case, father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and one more used to torture Smt. Mamta (who was married in the family on 20.04.1996) for not fulfilling the demand of dowry. She was threatened by the applicant saying that her husband Akhilesh Kumar can remarry at any time unless she fulfills the demand of Rs.2 lac. On 04.11.1996 she was murdered by the applicant and other co-accused and her deadbody was cremated in Gram Sundara, Etawah. On the basis of above F.I.R. present criminal case was registered against the applicant who happens to be mother-in-law of the deceased and investigated upon.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that she is about 75 years old lady and that she and others in this case have been falsely implicated by the informant for their vested interest. The deceased died natural death because of heart ailment. She is absolutely innocent and in case she is arrested, it shall amount to abuse of process of law.

¶9

My attention has specifically been drawn to the piece of statement given by Dr. K. C. Jain under whose treatment the deceased was, before her death. He stated that he was treating the deceased for her ailment and that there is probability of sudden death because of enlargement of her heart. My attention has also been drawn to the statement of uncle of the deceased in which he stated that his niece was ailing for last one and half month before her death and she died because of heart failure and that her family members were informed and that they had

¶10

no complaint against her in-laws.

¶11

Anticipatory bail application is opposed by learned A.G.A. on the premise that case is of the year 1996 and the proceedings was stayed by order of this Court dated 20.11.2015 passed in Criminal Revision Defective No.262 of 2000. Proceeding commenced after vacation of interim order. The applicant was summoned by the concerned court by order passed on 03.03.2020 and that applicant is yet to appear before the court concerned.

¶12

Countering above argument it is brought to my notice by the applicant that legal proceeding virtually came to halt during Covid period and that only recently process was issued against her.

¶13

I considered all aspects of the submissions, I find it a fit case to give benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant, hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Smt. Satyawati @ Satto involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- each and two sureties of the same amount before the court concerned subject to the conditions as below:-

¶15

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶17

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶18

(iv) that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory 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.

¶23

Order Date :- 6.1.2023 Asha

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Satyawati @ Satto v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Satyawati @ Satto v. State of U.P.and Another

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

Ummed Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Rashid and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Lalit Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitin Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Saudan Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Agaaz and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.