Vinita Devi Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:211245

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44249 of 2023

Applicant :- Vinita Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyaveer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghvendra Prakash,Saurabh Kesarwani

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Saurabh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Vinita Devi, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 200 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Khurja Dehat, District- Bulandshahr, during pendency of trial.

¶8

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

¶9

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that independent witnesses have stated that dispute used to take place between the couple. No role has been assigned to the applicant in their dispute. On the account dispute between couple, deceased committed suicide. He has pointed out to the report of ultrasound dated 10.7.2023 of the victim, which shows that deceased was having pregnancy of 12 weeks four days. She was married the applicant only on 22.4.2023. After the report of ultrasound came, husband of the deceased was suspecting that deceased contacted pregnancy from someone else prior to their marriage. According to the report of ultrasound, the period of three months of their marriage was not completed. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. She has no criminal history to her credit and is languishing in jail since 19.8.2023. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, she does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, 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. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails

¶12

over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 that :-

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(iv) In case the applicant misuse 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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.11.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinita Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinita Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharad Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Awadhesh @ Awadhu Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Patel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jaypal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Vs State of U.P.

Firoj Khan Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others