Allowed

Smt Jaywati v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2024ABAIL/8216/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, the mother-in-law of the deceased, in a Section 304-B IPC case. The decision relied on the absence of dowry demand allegations in the FIR and 161 Cr.P.C. statement, and the post-mortem report indicating death due to septicemic shock rather than cruelty.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:135833

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8216 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt Jaywati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Sri Santosh Kumar Gupta, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2- brother of the informant/ deceased. The same is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party no. 1, and Sri Santosh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 347 of 2024, under Section 304-B I.P.C., Police Station Amroha Nagar, District Amroha.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The first information report was lodged by the victim/deceased herself on 08.06.2024 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. In the statement of the informant/deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. there is no allegation of any demand of dowry. The informant/ victim died on 05.07.2024. Placing reliance on the statement of brother of the informant, it is contended that on 08.06.2024 the victim was admitted at District Hospital, Amroha. At the advice of the doctor, ultrasound was conducted on 10.06.2024. As per the report of the ultrasound, no abnormality was seen. Thereafter on 24.06.2024 the deceased was admitted at Sirsi Hasim Bag Hospital, Sambhal. On 27.06.2024 the deceased delivered a baby. On 27.06.2024 the deceased was referred to Asian Vivekanand Hospital, Moradabad. Thereafter the deceased was further taken to higher center AIIMS, Rishikesh. On 05.07.2024 the deceased died. It is contended that as per the postmortem report the deceased died due to septicemic shock. No ante-

¶10

mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. It is next contended that the deceased was not subjected to any cruelty for demand of dowry. Vague allegations have been levelled against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicant has apprehension of her arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

¶13

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant and, in particular, the fact that in the first information report and in the statement of the informant/ deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. there is no allegation of any demand of dowry, the fact that as per the post-mortem report the deceased died due to septicemic shock and no ante-mortem injury was found on her body, and the fact that the vague allegations have been levelled against the applicant, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶14

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Smt. Jaywati be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶18

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶19

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶20

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶21

The application stands disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.8.2024 SKT/-

¶23

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

Smt Jaywati v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Jaywati 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

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pintu Kumar Sah vs State of U.P. and Another

Satendra Kumar vs State of Up

Smt Mor Kali vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarvesh Kumar Alias Nandu vs State of U.P. and Another

Raja @ Jane Aalam vs State of U.P.

Mukul Yadav vs State of U.P.