Bail granted to Sulabi Devi under Section 437 Cr.P.C. in dowry death case. Court relied on Supreme Court precedents due to preliminary nature of offenses and vague FIR allegations.
Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties; conditions include undertaking not to seek adjournments and appear for trial protocols.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:184522
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35824 of 2023
Applicant :- Sulabi Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Yadav,Hemanta Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Anand Priya Singh
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
"Superficial Abrasion in area of 7.0 x 1.0 cm on right side of neck, 4 cm below Rt. Ear lobule."
have been made in the FIR that physical cruelty was committed upon the deceased in pursuit of the demand of dowry. The allegations so made in the FIR is devoid of material particulars. No attempt has been made by the first informant to explain the same in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. either. As such, the same is unworthy of credit and therefore, liable to be ignored by this Court at this stage. To buttress his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599. The husband of the deceased i.e. the son of the applicant is already languishing in jail. Applicant cannot be said to be the beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry. The death of the deceased is prima-facie a suicidal death. Up to this stage, no such material has emerged on the basis of which, it can be even inference that the applicant has abetted, instigated or conspired in the commission of crime, or there is any such material to show that the deceased committed suicide on account of an immediate act of applicant nor investigation can be inferred against applicant on account of his conduct.
9 Even otherwise, applicant is a woman of clean antecedents having no criminal history to her credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 12.04.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 5 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial. He, therefore, submits 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.
in-law of the deceased, since applicant is a lady, therefore, by virtue of the provisions contained in proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C., applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail, the bona-fide of the applicant is explicit from the fact that no grievous or fatal external or internal ante-mortem injury was found on the body of deceased, prima-facie, the death of deceased is a suicidal death, up to this stage, it is not evident from the record that the applicant has even abetted, instigated or conspired in the commission of the crime in question, there is no such material on record t show that the deceased committed suicide on account of an immediate act of applicant nor investigation can be inferred against applicant on account of her conduct, applicant cannot be said to the beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry, allegations made in the FIR regarding demand of dowry and commission of physical and mental cruelty upon the deceased are vague and bald allegations being devoid of material particulars, the said allegations have not been explained by the first informant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in view of above, the said allegations are liable to be ignored by this Court at this stage, in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam (Supra), the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, 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 stands crystallized yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/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.
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/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 HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
Order Date :- 22.9.2023 Vinay
Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant, a female accused in crimes under Sections 498A and 304B IPC, is entitled to bail under the proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C.
Whether the circumstantial evidence and vague allegations warrant custodial arrest or a personal bond on bail.
Whether the applicant has made out a case for bail given her clean antecedents and the suicidal nature of the incident.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and OthersRelied on¶14
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 · Who else cites this
Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶11
Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sulabi Devi
State of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
Vinay Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Rajeev Misra and Vinay Kumar
Parties & counsel
