Allowed

Smt. Savita v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2023BAIL/31625/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal bail application was filed by an accused husband accused of abetting the suicide of his deceased wife. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed the bail application after finding a lack of convincing material to suggest evidence tampering and considering the co-accused had already been released.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing personal bond and two heavy local sureties with conditions regarding court attendance and prohibition of adjournment requests.

Smt. Savita Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:175653

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31625 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Savita Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The F.I.R. has been lodged by brother of the deceased against the applicant, who is his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) as well as one Lala Babu @ Kalu Badhai, with the allegations that the applicant was having an affair with the co-accused Lala Babu @ Kaalu Badhai, therefore being humiliated with the same, the deceased had committed suicide.

¶7

3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the wife of the deceased and she was having extra marital relationship with the co-accused Lala Babu @ Kaalu Badhai, due to which, the deceased had committed suicide. He further submits that in view of the Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya and others Vs. State of Gujarat, 2015 STPL 3882 SC , mere extra marital relationship cannot be considered to be cause of abetment of suicide. He further submits that in fact, the applicant has no such relationship with the co-accused thus the applicant has been falsely roped by the informant merely to grab the share of deceased. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false

¶8

implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. Learned counsel has penultimate has argued that the coaccused has Lala Babu @ Kaalu Badhai has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32838 of 2023, copy of which order is annexed as Annexure-RA1 to the rejoinder affidavit. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 23.05.2023, having no criminal history.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶10

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all 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.

¶11

Let applicant Smt. Savita involved in Case Crime No. 183 of 2023 under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Shikarpur, District Bulandshahr, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

I. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall

¶13

not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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

II. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

III. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

¶16

IV. 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her 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, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶19

The bail application is allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 6.9.2023/S.Ali

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Savita v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savita 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

Lala Ram Gautam Vs State of U.P.

Channey Vs State of U.P.

Jamshed Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Singh Patel Vs State of U.P.

Gauri Shankar Sahu Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Sahni Vs State of U.P. and Another