Allowed

Rajkumari Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2023BAIL/14526/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 498A, 304B, and 201 IPC, the Allahabad High Court entertained arguments regarding the medical history and delay in FIR. The court rejected the lawyer's attempt to decline merit and allowed the application, permitting release on bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties subject to appearance before trial court and non-interference with investigation.

Rajkumari Devi Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170770

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14526 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajkumari Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sadrul Islam Jafri,Ambreen Masroor,Sr. Advocate

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Mishra

¶6

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶7

Sri Ashish Srivastava, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of the informant, today in the Court, which is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sadrul Islam Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ravi Kant Kushwaha, learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 316 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Bankata, District Deoria during pendency of the trial.

¶10

FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and her family members including her son i.e. husband of the deceased and according to the FIR marriage of the son of the applicant was performed with the deceased in December, 2020 and deceased was subjected to cruelty for want of dowry by applicant and her family members and on 05.09.2022 they have committed her murder and without informing the informant they were conducting her cremation and when informant after receiving information arrived at spot then they have ran away from the spot after throwing the half burnt dead body of the deceased in the river. It is further mentioned in the FIR that on the pointing of Dom the clothes and other belongings of the deceased were recovered.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and entire allegation of demand of dowry and torture and murder made against the applicant is totally false and baseless and actually deceased was suffering with sever

¶12

abdominal issue and she was under continuous medical treatment since June, 2022 and on the date of incident when her condition deteriorated then she was admitted to the hospital in Deoria on 05.09.2022 but on 06.09.2022 she was discharged for better treatment and was referred to BRD Medical College and her discharge slip of the hospital of Deoria has been annexed as Annexure-10 to the affidavit.

¶13

He further submits that unfortunately on the way to BRD Medical College deceased died and thereafter applicant and her family members informed the informant, who arrived at spot and in their presence cremation was conducted but after two days by cooking a false story FIR of the present case was lodged on 07.09.2022.

¶14

He further submits that applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and on the basis of general allegation he has been made accused in the present matter and there is no specific allegation made against her and during investigation the alleged half burnt dead body of the deceased could not be recovered and this fact clearly suggests that after two days concocted story was cooked up by the the informant. He further submits that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter she is in jail since 13.12.2022.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and her daughter-in-law died within two years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances and there is allegation of demand of dowry and without informing the informant in haste her dead body was disposed of, therefore, applicant, who is mother-in-law of the deceased cannot escape from her liability.

¶16

They further pointed out that from the statement of Dom Surendra Bansfore it reflects that in haste manner cremation of the deceased was done and half burnt dead body of the deceased has been thrown in the river and thereafter the clothes and other belongings of the deceased were recovered and this fact clearly suggests that applicant and her family members without informing the informant side disposed of the dead body of the deceased, therefore, applicant does not deserve bail.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶18

Applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and as per allegation her daughter-in-law died within two years of her marriage and there is also allegation of demand of dowry and in the FIR and in the statements of witnesses there is allegation against the applicant and her family members that in haste they disposed the dead body of the deceased, therefore, there is no post mortem report on record but from Annexure-10 to the affidavit it appears that deceased was being provided medical treatment since June, 2022 and on the date of incident i.e. on 05.09.2022 she was admitted to the District Hospital, Deoria and she was discharged on 06.09.2022 and was referred to B.R.D. Medical College, therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out at this stage that when on the way she died then informant was informed and in the presence of the informant and other family members of the deceased cremation was done and after two days FIR of the present case was lodged and there is no explanation of delay in lodging the FIR of two days.

¶19

Although, from the statement of the Dom it appears that in haste cremation was conducted and on her pointing out clothes of the deceased were also recovered but at the time of cremation the clothes in general are left by the family members of the deceased at Ghat and if recovery of clothes was made then merely on that basis it cannot be said that in haste applicant and her family members left the clothes of the deceased, which was later on recovered by the informant side. Further, applicant is mother-inlaw of the deceased and there is no specific allegation against her and in the present matter she is in jail since 13.12.2022.

¶20

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶22

Let the applicant - Rajkumari Devi be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶23

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the

¶25

case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶26

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶28

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶29

Order Date :- 24.8.2023 AK Pandey

¶30

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajkumari Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumari 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yadvendra Alias Mona Vs State of U.P.

Gunakar Urf Shri Krishna Vs State of U.P.

Satyendra Kumar Chaubey @ Sabloo Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Archana Jain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Faujdar Vs State of U.P.and Another