Allowed

Dhanmati Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2023BAIL/6116/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application allowed. The High Court observed that the applicant, falsely implicated as the mother-in-law of the deceased, has made a case for bail despite grave charges. Bail granted with conditions including furnishing bonds and heavysureties, and prohibitions against tampering with evidence or witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence or witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6116 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Dhanmati Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Singh,Yogendra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Shri Yogendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.265 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Salempur, District Deoria, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the deceased person was solemnized with the co-accused person Keshav as per Hindu Rites on 22.04.2018. The applicant and other co-accused persons are said to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry of dowry leading to her death on 13.11.2022.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing to do with the said offence. The case of the applicant is at a different footing to the husband, Keshav, of the deceased person. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no allegation in the FIR about what demand of dowry was made from the deceased person. There is no allegation of the said demand of dowry soon before her death, thus the ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. are not fulfilled. 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 15.11.2022. 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

¶11

learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

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

¶13

"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."

¶14

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.

¶15

Let the applicant- Dhanmati Devi 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

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.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge

¶23

in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶24

Order Date :- 8.2.2023 Ravi Kant

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dhanmati Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanmati 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramdular Vs State of U.P.

Satendra @ Tallu Vs State of U.P.

Janak Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shakib Vs State of U.P.

Sultan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satya Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.