Allowed

Savitri Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Mar 2023BAIL/55161/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, the court held that the applicant, falsely implicated mother-in-law with no specific role, distinguished from co-accused. Considering the nature of the offence and lack of complicity, the court allowed bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on furnishing personal bond and two sureties in like amount with conditions to cooperate, not tamper with evidence, and not engage in criminal activity.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55161 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Savitri Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilendra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State

¶6

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 503 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Shikohabad, district Firozabad, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution case, in brief, informant, who is the mother of Anjali (herein after referred to as deceased) lodged a first information report on 16.7.2022 against Chhote Lal, husband of the deceased and his family members including the applicant, who is mother-in-law of the deceased with the allegations inter alia that marriage of her daughter was solemnized with Chhote Lal on 28.7.2021. In the marriage sufÏcient dowry was given, but there was an additional demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle from the side of the accused. On 15.7.2022 at about 5.00 AM, her son-inlaw Chhote Lal called her to his house, but by that time her daughter was strangled to death by the accused persons.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and she has been falsely implicated in this case. General allegation of dowry demand has been made and no specific allegation has been levelled. The cause of death is hanging and except ligature mark, no injury was found on her body. It is further submitted that the applicant has no concern with the matrimonial affairs of the deceased. The case of the

¶9

applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused.

¶10

Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.9.2022 and in case, she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.

¶11

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant, but could not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and no specific role has been attributed to her. Her case is distinguishable from that of co-accused Chhote Lal.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Savitri Devi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶16

(ii) That 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(iii) That after her release, the applicant shall not

¶18

involve in any criminal activity.

¶19

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶21

Order Date :- 23.3.2023 Ishrat

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ISHRAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Savitri Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitri 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Faiyaz @ Faiyaz Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mukhtiyar Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Ranveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Jiyaul Vs State of U.P.

Digambar @ Lala Vs State of U.P.