Allowed

Ramkali v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2023BAIL/33717/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for dowry death/murder, the High Court considered the applicant's gender, clean antecedents, and the completion of investigation via charge sheet. Relying on precedent regarding female accused in matrimonial deaths despite grave charges, the court found no custody necessity.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amounts.

Ramkali Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:183011

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33717 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ramkali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Keshari Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Keshari Nath Tripathi, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Ramkali, seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 217 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 323, 302, 328, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Amroha Dehat, DistrictAmroha, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

It is the case of the applicant that after the occurrence, the victim was rushed to Panecea Hospital, Amroha for treatment.

¶10

Record shows that Marriage of son of applicant namely Sukhveer was solemnized with Sangeeta on 13.06.2015. However, just after expiry of a period of seven years and one month from the date of marriage of applicant an unfortunate incident occurred on 11.07.2022 in which the daughter-in-law of applicant namely Sangeeta is alleged to have consumed some poisonous substance. Ultimately she succumbed to the poisonous substance consumed by her on 12.07.2022.

¶11

The inquest (Panchnama) of the body of deceased was conducted on 12.07.2022 on the information given by the guard of

¶12

Panacea Hospital, Amroha. In the opinion of the witnesses of inquest (Panch witnesses), the nature of death of the deceased was characterised as suicidal. The cause of death of deceased was opined as consumption of poisonous substance. Thereafter, postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. The Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted autopsy of the body of deceased opined that cause of death of deceased could not be ascertained and therefore viscera was preserved. However, no ante mortem injuries were found by the Autopsy Surgeon on the body of the deceased. Ultimately, Scientific Officer submitted FSL report (viscera report) dated 19.09.2022, according to which, a foreign chemical compound i.e. Organic Phosphide Insecticide was fond in the body parts of the deceased, sent for Chemical Analysis.

¶13

It is apposite to mention here that while the deceased was undertaking treatment at the aforementioned hospital, the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of the deceased in which she has implicated the present applicant for administering poisonous substance to her.

¶14

8.Ultimately first informant Kuldeep Singh the brother of the deceased lodged a delayed F.I.R. dated 13.07.2022 which was registered as Case Crime No. 217 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 323, 302, 328, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Amroha Dehat, District- Amroha. In the aforesaid F.I.R. seven persons namely Sukhveer Singh (husband), Ramkali (mother-in-law), Kulwant Singh (Jeth), Asha (Jethani), Soni (Nanad), Pusiya (Nanad) and Rekha (Nanad) of the deceased have been nominated as named accused.

¶15

After aforementioned F.I.R. was registered, the Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of

¶16

investigation, he examined first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who have substantially supported the F.I.R. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of only two of the named accused namely Sukhbeer Singh (husband) and Ramkali (mother in law) of deceased is established in the crime in question. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet dated 07.08.2022 against aforementioned two named accused whereby and whereunder they have been charge-sheeted under Sections 498A, 323, 302, 328, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Rest of the five named accused were exculpated.

¶17

Learned counsel for applicant contends that though the applicant is a named as well as charge-sheeted yet she is liable to be enlarged on bail. Applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Attention of the Court was then invited to the provisions contained in proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. and on basis thereof, he submits that since the applicant is a lady therefore she is liable to be enlarged on bail. With reference to the material on record, he submits that the deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of terminating her life by consuming poisonous substance herself. The occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings has occurred after seven years of marriage. As such it cannot be presumed that the death of the deceased has caused on accoun of non-fulfilment of additional demand of dowry. Even otherwise, applicant is a woman of clean antecedents inasmuch as she has no criminal history to her credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 20.07.2022. As such, she has undergone almost one year and two months of incarceration. The police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section

¶18

173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. However, upto this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. He therefore contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶19

Learned counsel for applicant contends that after submission of aforementioned charge sheet, cognizance was taken upon same by the concerned Magistrate. Since the case was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, resultantly, concerned Magistrate committed the case of Court of Sessions. As a consequence of above, Session Trial No.875 of 2022 (State Vs. Sukhbeer) came to be registered. Applicant is however co-operating with the trial.

¶20

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since the applicant is a named as well as charge-sheeted accused, therefore, applicant does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Attention of the court was invited to the document occurring at page 55 of the paper book. On basis thereof, he submits that after the victim was hospitalised her statement was recorded by the police officer wherein the victim has clearly implicated the present applicant for administering poisonous substance to the victim. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. submits that complicity of applicant is clearly established in the crime in question as such no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant. However he Could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned

¶22

A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that since applicant is a lady, she is therefore entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C, the police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stand crysttalised, in spite of above, the learned AG.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgement of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhash Chandra Gangawal and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2023 Live Law SC 373, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶23

Accordingly, present application for bail is allowed .

¶24

Let the applicant- Ramkali involved in aforesaid case crime number 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶25

(i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶26

(ii) 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.

¶27

(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶28

(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶29

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 of applicant and send her to prison.

¶30

Order Date :- 21.9.2023 YK

¶31

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

Ramkali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkali 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

Nikit Alias Aditya Vs State of U.P.

Vatsal Varshney Vs State of U.P.

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

Sunil Kumar Bind Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Maneesh Meena @ Thakur Vs State of U.P.

Bishnu and Another Vs State of U.P.