Allowed

Rani Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2023ABAIL/7365/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to Rani Devi, the mother-in-law of the deceased, in a case alleging dowry death under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. The Court allowed bail pending the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., ordering the applicant to furnish a bond.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail pending filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

Rani Devi Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:158668

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7365 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rani Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Usha Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Rani Devi seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.202 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304 B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact whereas no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. He further submits that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. All family members of the applicant i.e. son, husband, married daughter, unmarried daughter have been implicated in the present case. The applicant neither demanded for additional dowry nor she tortured the deceased. He further submits that just after the marriage, the applicant's son, who is in jail, has left the house and was living separately from the applicant. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. Prima facie no offence as alleged is made out against the applicant. The investigation is going on and till date charge sheet has not been submitted. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained through supplementary affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶10

From perusal of the record it appears that cause of death in the post mortem report has been found as asphyxia due to ante mortem

¶11

hanging. Co-accused Deepak Kumar Sonkar @ Deep Narayan, the father-in-law of the deceased, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7548 of 2023 by order dated 27.7.2023 and the same allegations have been alleged against the present applicant, who happens to be the mother-in-law of the deceased.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶13

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶14

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶15

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicant, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶18

(ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶20

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant.

¶21

Order Date :- 8.8.2023 Fhd

¶22

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rani Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rani Devi v. State of U.P.

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

Subhash @ Sudesh and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil and Another Vs State of U.P.

Waseem Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikram Mavi Vs State of U.P.

Azaad Vs State of U.P. and Another