Allowed

Vimla v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2023BAIL/4694/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Sections 498A and 304B IPC, the Allahabad High Court allowed bail for the applicant Vimla, who was accused of dowry-related harassment leading to her daughter-in-law's death. The court imposed standard bail conditions and noted that the grant does not prejudge the trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties, subject to conditions.

Vimla Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4694 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vimla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nikhil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar, advocate holding brief of Shri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 365 of 2019, under Sections 498A & 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Nichlol, District Maharajganj, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with the son of the applicant Chandra Bhan as per Hindu rites on 12.05.2019. The applicant and other coaccused persons are stated to have subject her to cruelty for demand of dowry of a motor-cycle, leading to her death on 26.08.2019.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The co-accused Munna and Babita have been enlarged on bail. Even the prosecution witnesses in Court have not supported the prosecution story. The prosecution witnesses PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have been declared hostile by the public prosecutor, and cross-examined as such. There is no likelihood of conviction in the matter. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.11.2019. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712 , has observed as under:-

¶12

"We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail."

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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 .

¶14

Let the applicant- Vimla involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

Order Date :- 22.2.2023 Ashutosh

¶23

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

Vimla v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimla 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar @ Bantu Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Narpat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pappi Vs State of U.P.

Vikki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Clara Tom Kinson Vs State of U.P.