Allowed

Pagula Devi @ Sukhraji v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2024/62/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by the mother-in-law of the deceased in a dowry death FIR under Sections 498A/304B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court noted her age, long custody without antecedents, general allegations not proximate to the death, and parity with co-accused, and enlarged her on bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence or pressurising witnesses.

Pagula Devi @ Sukhraji Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:14245

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 62 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pagula Devi @ Sukhraji Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhat Dwivedi,Arun Kumar Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

As per the FIR version, the informant married his daughter with adequate dowry to the son of the applicant. One year ago, the ritual of gauna was performed by the informant. After gauna, the accused persons were committing cruelty upon her and were demanding a golden chain in dowry. On 05.04.2023 at about 5:00 am in the morning, they have killed the daughter of the informant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is mohter-in-law of the deceased. He is living separately. The certified issued by the gram pradhan is on record. The applicant is 61 years old lady. There are general and sweeping allegations in the statement of the prosecution witnesses regarding demand of dowry. The allegations are not close proximity to the death of the deceased.

¶10

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Applicant also

¶11

seeks parity with the bail order of co-accused Muneem Verma @ Muneem vs. State passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1074 of 2024.

¶12

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application submitting that there are four contusions on the body of the deceased for which there is no explanation however, does not dispute that its a case of parity.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since she is living separately, therefore, the explanation can be given only by the husband of the deceased who was living with her. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.09.2023 without having any criminal antecedent.

¶14

On due consideration to the general nature of allegations made in the statement of the prosecution witnesses; age of the applicant, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.09.2023 without having any criminal antecedent as also the fact that applicant seeks parity with the bail order of co-accused Muneem Verma @ Muneem (supra) and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the grounds of parity .

¶16

Let the applicant, Pagula Devi @ Sukhraji , involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 105/2023, under Sections 498A/304B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Khargupur, District - Gonda, be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(iii) 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iv) 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.

¶21

(v) 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.

¶22

(vi) 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.

¶23

Order Date :- 16.2.2024

¶24

Saurabh Yadav/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pagula Devi @ Sukhraji v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pagula Devi @ Sukhraji v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Vineet Sahu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Udai Raj Maurya Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Vidyasagar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Qadir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.