Smt. Sheela Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:126528

Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22234 of 2023

Applicant :- Smt. Sheela Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,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. Sheela with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 30 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B, 323 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Dauki, District- Agra, during pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is innocent and applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased Poonam who was married to her son namely Jain @ Jangjeet prior to three years from the date of incident. It is further submitted that general allegations are made against all the named persons. The applicant lives separately with her another son who use to live in a house which is situated across the road which is shown in the site plan and it is annexed as Annexure-2 of the affidavit filed in support of bail applicaiton. The applicant has no criminal history to her credit and is languishing in jail since 06.03.2023. In postmortem report, hyoid bone was found intact and except ligature mark no injury was found. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submitted that deceased died within seven years of marriage and contended that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence.

¶10

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for

¶11

the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; 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 his 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 he shall 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.

¶14

(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 his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(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 him in accordance with law.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 14.6.2023 PS

¶20

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Sheela v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sheela v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bambaiya@ Ganga Dayal Vs State of U.P.

Raghvendra Vs State of U.P.

Aslam Ali Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Bhartiya @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Shrama and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra @ Sonu Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another