Allowed

Smt. Sunita v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2023BAIL/1627/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant, a woman under trial for dowry death charges, citing jail overcrowding and fundamental rights. The court imposed strict conditions regarding presence, evidence tampering, and adjournments, and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within a year.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding evidence tampering, absence, and adjournments.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:154127

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1627 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Sunita Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun Kumar Singh,Prem Shankar

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Smt. Sunita, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 280 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, DistrictAuraiya, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant of causing dowry death of her sister-in-law by way of burning.

¶9

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a woman. She is in jail since 06.01.2020. Before the trial court, not a single witness has been examined till date as clear from the order-sheet of the trial court brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit. The trial will take time to conclude. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. She has no criminal history to her credit.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, she does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶13

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall

¶14

not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 her in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person 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 her in accordance with law.

¶18

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year.

¶21

The Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned within 10 days.

¶22

Order Date :- 2.8.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Sunita v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunita 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

Sameer Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Jitendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arjun Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kamesh @ Chini Vs State of U.P.

Chandrapal Vs State of U.P.

Jay Brajesh Vs State of U.P.