Allowed

Mufeeda v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2023BAIL/55667/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Allahabad High Court allowed bail to the applicant, the mother-in-law of the deceased, in a criminal case involving dowry death (Section 304-B IPC). The court noted the victim had ingested poison and the applicant suffered from paralysis, finding the bail conditions sufficient.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail furnishing personal bond and two heavy local sureties subject to specific conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165566

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55667 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Mufeeda Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lalta Prasad,Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav,Prabhat Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The applicant never demanded dowry or did she torture the deceased. In fact, the applicant never interfered in the domestic life of the deceased and her husband. The applicant is bereaved by the death of his daughter-in-law and prays for peace of the departed soul. However, for the purpose of the bail application, it is submitted that the deceased was a temperamental lady who was prone to extreme reactions even on trivial issues. He next submits that the applicant is suffering from paralysis and is not capable to move properly, therefore it is not possible for the applicant to harass or torture the deceased for demand of dowry. He next submits that though according to the viscera report Carbamate Insecticides Poison has been found, which is used to kill the insect, thus the deceased had herself consumed the same and had committed suicide. The applicant did not abet or instigate the deceased to commit the suicide. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case. The applicant is a old aged person, who resides in Ghaziabad with her family. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who has cooperated with the police investigation and shall join the trial proceeding. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. The applicant is in jail since 30.07.2022.

¶8

Learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. He does not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the bail application.

¶9

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let applicant Mufeeda involved in Case Crime No.12 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 323, 304-B I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bhojpur, District Ghaziabad, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶11

I. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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.

¶12

II. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

III. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

¶14

IV. 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 17.8.2023 S.Ali

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mufeeda v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mufeeda 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

Machal Singh Alias Sandeep Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rahmat Khan Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kalu Khan @ Shariq Vs State of U.P.