Allowed

Saroj Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Nov 2024ABAIL/11010/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Saroj Devi, charged under Sections 498A and 304B IPC, discharging no opinion on merits but applying constitutional guidelines for future contingencies.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted until conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties and adhering to specified conditions.

Saroj Devi vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:178042

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11010 of 2024 Applicant :- Saroj Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohan Lal Pandey,Nishi Kant Chaturvedi,Ram Manohar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application (under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.584 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station Meja, District Pryagraj.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. The incident is said to have taken place on 10.11.2023 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged on 24.11.2024 i.e. after a long gap of 14 days for which no plausible explanation has been mentioned. The applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased aged about 72 years. He further submits that the applicant has never demanded for any additional dowry nor she has committed any cruelty upon the deceased. Only general allegation has been levelled against the applicant. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. He further submits that similarly placed co-accused Darbari Lal Jaiswal, who is father-in-law of the deceased, has already been granted anticiptory bail by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.3981 of 2024, copy of order has been annexed as Annexure No.5 to the affidavit filed in support of application. The applicant is having no criminal antecedent.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶9

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, she is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per

¶10

the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Saroj Devi, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶13

(ii) 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.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶16

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶17

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶18

(vii) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶19

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 13.11.2024

¶22

Ajeet

¶23

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saroj Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Shankar Soni vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Sharma vs State of Up and Another

Santosh Kumar Dohrey vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.

Hany @ Siddharth Bhatnagar and Another vs State of U.P.

Prabhan Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others