Allowed

Smt. Mithlesh v. State of Up Thro Principal Secretary Home Gov of Up Lucknow

Allahabad HC2 Jun 2023BAIL/1259/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail application of accused lodged in dowry death case. Court noted altercation over mobile phone usage as cause of suicide, hostile prosecution witnesses, significant pre-trial incarceration, and relied on Supreme Court precedents regarding personal liberty and speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail through personal bond and two sureties subject to verification and four specific conditions of conduct.

Smt. Mithlesh Vs State of Up Thro Principal Secretary… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:123652

¶2

e-court

¶3

Court No. - 76

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1259 of 2023

¶5

Applicant :- Smt. Mithlesh Opposite Party :- State Of Up Thro Principal Secretary Home Gov Of Up Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Dwijendra Prasad,Shailendra Kumar Tripathi,Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶7

Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit field today are taken on record.

¶8

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

¶9

In this case, it has been alleged in the F.I.R. that due to dowry death of her daughter-Shweta Kumari F.I.R. was lodged by the informant-Tej Singh against the in-laws of the deceased including the present accused-applicant on 08.04.2022 and after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has not committed the present offence. It is further submitted that she is the mother-in-law of the deceased. No dowry was ever demanded by the present accused-applicant from the deceased and she was never subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry. It is further submitted that the marriage of the son of the present accused applicant was solemnized without taking any dowry. She used to talk too much on mobile and when it was protested by her in-laws, she committed suicide. It is further submitted that during the course of trial, PW-3 Tej Singh, informant, father of the deceased, and PW-2 mother of the deceased have turned hostile and did not corroborate the prosecution version at all. They have categorically denied any allegation of demand of additional dowry and cruelty and harassment towards her daughter by her in-laws. It is further submitted that the present accused applicant has no criminal history and she is languishing in jail since 3.6.2022 and in case she

¶11

is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶12

On the other hand, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that sufficient evidence against the applicant has been collected during course of investigation, hence, she is not entitled for bail.

¶13

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-

¶15

"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶16

8. In Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :

¶17

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

¶18

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.

¶19

23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."

¶20

In this matter, as is evident from the record prosecutrix is major. There are contradictions in F.I.R. version and her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. F.I.R. was lodged eight days after the incident without any plausible explanation regarding delay. Applicant is in jail since 3.6.2022. Hence, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases as well as in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant Smt. Mithlesh involved in Case Crime No.115 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Dehat, District-Etah be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶22

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶23

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶24

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶25

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶26

(v) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶28

It is made clear that the submissions and observations made in this order are only for deciding the bail application. Trial Court while deciding the trial will not be influenced with the same.

¶29

Order Date :- 2.6.2023

¶30

m.a.

¶31

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AYYUB High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Mithlesh v. State of Up Thro Principal Secretary Home Gov of Up Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mithlesh v. State of Up Thro Principal Secretary Home Gov of Up Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharamveer Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Yadav @ Monu Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramavtar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudama Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and 3 Others