Allowed

Kailashi Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2023BAIL/21239/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to Kailashi Devi, accused of dowry harassment and culpable homicide, noting she is the deceased's mother-in-law living separately. Bail granted with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conduct conditions including attendance.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed with personal bond and two sureties on specified conditions including attendance and non-tampering.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:134630

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21239 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kailashi Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Samar Nath Yadav,Sharad Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri J.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Kailashi Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 417 of 2022, under sections 498-A, 304B, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khajni, District Gorakhpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased with Vipin Kumar Yadav the son of the applicant was solemnized in the year 2022. The applicant was living separately from the deceased and her husband. It is argued that general and omnibus allegations have been made in the FIR against the applicant and his family members. The story regarding demand of dowry has seen the light of the day for the first time when the FIR has been lodged. The husband of the deceased is in jail. The applicant is lady and is entitled to get benefit under Section 437 Cr.P.C. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 16 of the affidavit and is in jail since 17.03.2023.

¶10

Per contra learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that

¶11

the applicant is named in the FIR as such prayer for bail be rejected.

¶12

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. General and omnibus allegations have been made in the FIR against the applicant and her family members. The husband of the deceased is in jail. The applicant was living separately from the deceased and her husband.

¶13

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Kailashi Devi , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶18

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If

¶20

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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶21

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶22

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶23

The bail application is allowed.

¶24

Order Date :- 7.7.2023 K.K. Maurya

¶25

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kailashi Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailashi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sameer @ Shahbuddin Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Alias Dipu Alias Monu Biyar Vs State of U.P.

Sarjeet Vs State of U.P.

Ankur Vs State of U.P.

Jagdish Vs State of U.P.

Lata Sharma@ Hemlata Vs State of U.P.