Allowed

Lata Sharma@ Hemlata v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2023BAIL/29652/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed the bail application of Lata Sharma, accused under sections 304-B, 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court granted bail after noting the applicant was a lady, had no criminal history, and the deceased had received no bodily injury.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of non-interference, attendance, and no delay in trial.

Lata Sharma@ Hemlata Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:134480

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29652 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Lata Sharma@ Hemlata Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shivendra Raj Singhal,Rishika Raj Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shivendra Rai Singhal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jagdish Tripathi, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Lata Sharma@ Hemlata, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 1834 of 2022, under sections 304-B, 323, 326A, 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad.

¶8

The F.I.R. of the present case has been lodged on 23.11.2022 by Nishu Upadhyay alleging therein that his sister Priyanka Sharma was married to Brijesh Sharma on 23.11.2016. There was demand of dowry, only money was being demanded by the accused persons for which the deceased used to be physically and mentally tortured and harassed. Brijesh Sharma had an illicit relationship with the applicant. On 21.11.2022, the accused persons gave some poisonous substance to his sister, after which she was taken to the hospital by the neighbour where she was under treatment. She died during treatment in Loknayak Hospital Delhi on 22.11.2022. The F.I.R. has been lodged against Brijesh Sharma/husband, Lata/Jethani, Babu Lal Sharma/Jeth and Manohar Lal/father-inlaw.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the Jethani of the deceased. It is argued that the deceased was admitted in Maulana Azad Medical College & Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi by her husband. It is argued that the allegation on the applicant having illicit relationship with the husband of the deceased is false, baseless and without any evidence. It is argued

¶10

that the deceased committed suicide. The doctor in post mortem examination report did not find any bodily injury on her person but opined that the death has been caused due to chemical peritonitis as a result of perforation of stomach due to corrosive ingestion. However, in a routine manner, viscera was preserved but the viscera report is awaited till date. It is argued that the general and omnibus allegations have been leveled against the applicant and other co-accused in the F.I.R. It is argued that Brijesh Sharma the husband of the deceased is in jail. It is further argued that the applicant is a lady and is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in paras 37 ad 38 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 22.02.2023

¶11

Per contra learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that applicant is Jethani of the deceased. The deceased has not received bodily injury. The husband of the deceased is in jail. The applicant is a lady.

¶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- Lata Sharma@ Hemlata , 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 he 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 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 her under Section 229-A IPC.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

The bail application is allowed.

¶23

Order Date :- 7.7.2023 K.K. Maurya

¶24

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶25

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

Lata Sharma@ Hemlata v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lata Sharma@ Hemlata 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.

Kailashi Devi Vs State of U.P.

Jagdish Vs State of U.P.