Allowed

Rajrani v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2023BAIL/58460/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous bail application was filed by Rajrani against the State of U.P. in a dowry harassment and death case. The court released the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and sureties due to lack of specific allegations against her and reclusive living arrangements.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Rajrani be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58460 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rajrani Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Purushottam Dixit,Jitendra Kumar,Keshav Hari Dixit,Saumitra Tiwari,Yogesh Narayan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Yadav,Rajesh Yadav,Vandana Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Yogesh Narayan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Amit Kumar Shukla, learned Brief Holder, for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.417 of 2022, under Sections 498A and 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh during pendency of the trial.

¶6

FIR of the present case was lodged by the informant against the applicant, her husband and her son and according to the FIR, his daughter was being continuously harassed by applicant and her family members for want of dowry and on 20.8.2022 applicant and her family members committed murder of his daughter.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the mother-in-law and she resides separately with her husband, i.e., father-in-law and she is having no concern with the family affairs of her son, i.e., husband of the deceased and being mother-in-law she has been falsely implicated in the present matter by the informant.

¶8

He further submits that on the basis of general allegation applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with father-in-law and husband of the deceased and even from

¶9

the perusal of the FIR and the statement of the informant, it appears that there was a vague demand of dowry and no reliance can be placed on such version of FIR.

¶10

He next submits that applicant in the present matter is in jail since 21.8.2022, i.e., for the last about 8 months.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and she was the important member of the family and she is equally responsible for the death of her daughter-in-law. He next submits, deceased is the daughter-in-law of applicant and she died within 7 years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances due to strangulation and there was also allegation of demand of dowry, therefore, considering the provisions of Section 113B Indian Evidence Act, applicant should not be released on bail.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶13

Although deceased, the daughter-in-law of applicant, died within 2 years from her marriage under abnormal circumstances and there is also allegation of demand of dowry and from the perusal of the post mortem report it appears that she died due to strangulation but applicant stated in paragraph-11 to the affidavit filed in support of the present bail application that she is the mother-in-law of the deceased and she resides separately along with her husband, i.e., father-in-law and she is lady and is in jail since August, 2022, i.e., for the last about 8 months.

¶14

Therefore, considering the fact that applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and there is no specific allegation agaisnt her, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the

¶16

merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant- Raj Rani be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless her personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶22

Order Date :- 25.4.2023 SKM

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajrani v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajrani 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

Ahasan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Parsan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra @ Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sharif Vs State of U.P.