Allowed

Smt. Teerath Rani v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2024BAIL/286/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail sought by a mother-in-law in a dowry-death FIR after her daughter-in-law and granddaughter were found dead in a locked room. Noting post-mortem findings suggesting hanging and absence of criminal antecedents, the court held Section 304B was prima facie not attracted regarding the child and allowed regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, subject to conditions of attending hearings and not tampering with evidence.

Smt. Teerath Rani vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:5145

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 286 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Teerath Rani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA; Ms. Anupama Bhadauria, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶7

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.242 of 2023, under Section 498A, 304B, 506 IPC & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Dalmau, District Rae Bareli.

¶8

3. In terms of the FIR it was stated that the sister of the informant was married to the son of the applicant five years ago and sufficient dowry was also given. It was stated that after one year of the marriage, one girl was born, however, there used to be a constant demand of dowry. It is stated that on 12.07.2023, the second girl child was born to the sister of the informant for which she was criticized and threats were issued that both the mother and the daughter would be killed. Subsequently, on 19.08.2023 it was alleged that all the matrimonial family members had killed by hanging the sister of the informant, as well as her daughter by throttling. In the light of the said, the present bail application has been filed by the applicant who is the mother-in-law.

¶9

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that in terms of the inquest report, prima-facie , a view was formed by the panch witnesses that the lady Gyanwati had committed suicide by hanging and prior to the said it appear that she throttled the child to death. It is further argued by counsel for the applicant that in respect of the daughter-in-law, the cause of death was shown as ante mortem hanging and a ligature mark was found visible on the body without there being any other injury. As regards the daughter of the deceased, a ligature mark was found and the cause of death was ascertained as ante mortem strangulation. It is further argued by counsel for the applicant that even as per the statement of the police personnel who had visited the spot, it was revealed that the room in which the suicide was committed was found locked from inside and the latch was found broken.

¶10

5. In the light of the said, the submission of counsel for the applicant is that the deceased committed suicide and prior to the said, throttled the girl child to death. The further submission of counsel for the applicant is that there is no averment with regard to the fact that prior to the death or soon before it, the applicant was tortured mentally or physically in relation to demand of dowry. It is argued that the allegations are that the deceased was being criticized for giving birth to a daughter which does not come within the definition of Section 304B IPC. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 29.09.2023 and the other granddaughter of the applicant is alone with nobody to take care of her, as such, the applicant should be enlarged on bail.

¶11

6. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA strongly opposed the bail application by arguing that two bodies were recovered from the house in which the applicant was staying. Counsel for the informant also argued that on the basis of averment in the FIR it was alleged that constant pressure was being made for getting the house and thus, the complicity of the applicant cannot be ruled out in view of the presumption to be satisfied by the applicant as prescribed under Section 304B IPC.

¶12

7. It is not disputed that the applicant has no criminal antecedent.

¶13

8. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, it is a very harsh case where the daughter-in-law and her younger daughter was found dead in a room. As per the statement of the police personnel, the room was found locked from inside and the latch was found broken which, prima-facie, denotes that the daughter-in-law had committed suicide which is also apparent from the post-mortem report. As regards the death of the granddaughter, apparently, there is no statement that there was any harassment at the instance of the applicant to the granddaughter and prima-facie, Section 304B IPC would not be attracted insofar as the death of the granddaughter is concerned, which is applicable primarily in the case of death of a woman who is married and that too within seven years of marriage.

¶14

9. As such, considering the aforesaid facts coupled with the fact that the applicant is a lady and has no criminal antecedent, she is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶15

10. Let the applicant Smt. Teerath Rani be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶17

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶18

(c) 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.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.1.2024 nishant

¶20

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Teerath Rani v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Teerath Rani v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Mohd. Akeel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4OTHERS

Chhotu Alias Umesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow

Shishupal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Harshendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Shyam Bihari @ Shyam Kishor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Brijesh Kumar Prajapati Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Govt. Lko.