Allowed

Sona Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2023BAIL/48091/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail for three applicants accused of dowry death under IPC 498A and 304B. The court noted all prosecution witnesses declared hostile, investigation was one-sided, and jail overcrowding exists. Bail granted subject to conditions regarding trial attendance and non-tampering.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence, not seeking adjournments, and maintaining presence during trial.

Sona Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:220379

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48091 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sona Devi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kameshwar Singh,Sudhanshu Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

There are allegations against the applicants of causing dowry death of the deceased.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that it is a case of false implication. Before the trial court six prosecution witnesses have been examined. All of them have been declared hostile. Applicants are in jail since 28.03.2023.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.

¶10

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 applicants; 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 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in 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.

¶11

Let the applicants, Sona Devi, Munna Sahani and Jai Ram Sahani, involved in Case Crime No.23 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Maniar, District- Ballia be released on bail on their 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.

¶12

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶13

(iii) The applicants shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(v) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

¶17

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

¶18

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicants as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of one year.

¶19

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial court concerned within ten days.

¶20

Order Date :- 21.11.2023 SS

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sona Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sona Devi and 2 Others 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

Riyaz Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anshul @ Anshu Vs State of U.P.

Billu Urf Ankit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sonu Lal Alias Sundar Lal Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Singh @ Jeetu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar @ Goli Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others