Allowed

Smt. Guddi Alias Kavita and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2024ABAIL/10207/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted anticipatory bail to the applicants, sisters-in-law of a deceased, in an FIR involving dowry death. The bail was granted based on vague allegations, divergent prosecution witness statements, and the co-accused's prior bail.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicants to surrender on release of anticipatory bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties.

Smt. Guddi Alias Kavita and Another vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:172548

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10207 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Guddi Alias Kavita And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ambreen Masroor,Sadrul Islam Jafri,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kapil Tyagi,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the informant-victim as well as Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Sessions Trial No. 537 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 81 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mundali, District Meerut.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are the married sister-in-laws of the deceased and have been falsely implicated in the instant case. At the time of alleged incident, the applicants were living separately. The applicants have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. A vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicants. The husband of deceased Sonu has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17978 of 2020 (Sonu Vs. State of U.P.). The case of the applicants is on better footing to that of co-accused Sonu. The medical report of the deceased as well as the alleged eye witness Parul (sister of the deceased) do not support the prosecution version. The applicants had co-operated with the investigation, the investigation has been completed, charge sheet has been filed and the applicants have been summoned by the concerned court. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. The applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail till the end of trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, in particular the fact, that vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicants, the statement of the sister of the deceased does not support the medical evidence, the husband of deceased Sonu has been granted regular bail by this Court, charge-sheet has been submitted, no custodial interrogation is required, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicants Smt. Guddi @ Kavita and Smt. Surendi @ Soni involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

(i) the applicants shall make themselves available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

¶13

(ii) the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶14

(iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the concerned court.

¶15

In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶16

The application stands disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.11.2024 Lbm/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Guddi Alias Kavita and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Guddi Alias Kavita and Another 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bharat Lal vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanhaiya Lal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Naimuddin vs State of Up and Another

Shuaib vs State of Up and Another

Deshraj vs State of U.P.

Diptee Singh vs State of U.P. and Another