Allowed

Urmila Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Oct 2023BAIL/43277/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Urmila Devi, an under-trial accused in a dowry death case, citing overcrowding in jails, lack of speedy trial, and uncertainty regarding trial conclusion. The court imposed strict conditions to ensure her presence and prevent interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, ensuring court appearance, and avoiding adjournments during evidence recording.

Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:203660

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43277 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Urmila Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sachida Nand Tiwari,Kaushal Kishore Mani

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aditya Kumar Rai

¶6

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Aditya Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant of committing dowry death of her daughter-in-law.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that the marriage of the deceased with the son of the applicant took place on 11.11.2020. Thereafter she gave birth to a female child who is aged about one and a half years now. The deceased committed suicide because of mis-adjustment in her matrimonial home and also dispute with her husband. The entire family members of her matrimonial home, including married sister-in-law, were implicated in this case. He has submitted that it is a case of false implication of applicant. The applicant is in jail since 17.06.2023 and has no criminal history to her credit.

¶10

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the 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 trial; 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., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in

¶12

jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant, Urmila Devi, involved in Case Crime No. 222 of 2023, under Sections- 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Rampur Karkhana, District- Deoria, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) 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. 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.

¶18

(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 her in accordance with law.

¶19

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

¶20

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be

¶21

verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

Order Date :- 26.10.2023 Rohit

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Urmila Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Devi 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

Jitendra Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Farman Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Aslam Vs State of U.P.

Mukul Bhasin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Harikanchan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Udai Veer Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others