Allowed

Chandrashree v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2024/3488/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3488 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court imumbled relieve an aged mother-in-law accused of dowry death and murder. The court granted bail, noting she was specifically not alleged as a 498A/304B offender, and imposed standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Chandrashree released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding court attendance and ensuring her presence for framing of charges and recording of stat

Chandrashree Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:26689

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3488 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Chandrashree Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Aditya Singh Tomar, holding brief of Sri Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 05.01.2024 in FIR/Crime No.04 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station – Mohammdi, District – Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant, who is mother-in-law of the victim (since deceased), has been falsely implicated in the case as she has not committed any offence as alleged. Even as per the FIR, no specific allegation has been levelled against the present applicant, rather general allegation has been levelled regarding demand of motorcycle. It has been further submitted that the present applicant is an old aged lady and had nothing to do with the family affairs of her son. Her relations with her daughter-inlaw were cordial and she never demanded any dowry from her or her family members. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that cause of death is hanging and there is no ante-mortem injury on the body of the victim (since deceased) except one contusion on the chin, which might be caused on account of hanging. Charge sheet has been filed, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail as she undertakes that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order. Besides, being lady, the applicant may be enlarged on bail granting her the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C.

¶9

Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and

¶11

allegations of the FIR; the fact that the present applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased, no specific allegation has been levelled against her; charge sheet has been filed; the applicant being lady may be given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. and undertaking of the applicant that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶12

6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶13

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

¶14

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial 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.

¶17

(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 absence of the applicant is 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 her in accordance with law.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶19

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶20

Order Date :- 1.4.2024 /RBS/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandrashree v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashree v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sonpal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Shardendu Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Harendra Prasad Bhatt vs U.P Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director and Another

Shadab Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Smt. Ketki @ Saloni Lakkha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Munna Kumar Sahni vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.