Allowed

Lalmani and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC10 May 2024BAIL/4955/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to two accused persons charged with 498A, 304B, 302 IPC, and D.P. Act offenses. The court considered the applicants" advanced age, ill health, and the fact that the victim had no prior demand for dowry. The minor grandson" welfare was also noted as a significant factor.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on personal bond and two sureties each with specific conditions regarding presence in court and prohibition of country travel.

Lalmani and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36333

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4955 of 2024 Applicant :- Lalmani And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anuj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vishwanath Nishad, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit enclosing therewith the paper which have been filed with the bail application without proper stamping, however, they are properly stamped now, the same is taken on record.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are in jail since 26.2.2024 in Crime No. 399 of 2023 u/s 498A, 304B, 302 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kudebhar, District Sultanpur. It has been submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case as they have not committed any offence as alleged. Both the present applicants are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the victim (since deceased). Their relation with the victim (since deceased) were very cordial and they have never demanded any dowry from her or her family members. Both the present applicants being an old aged persons are suffering from various ailments mainly age related ailments.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the victim (since deceased) was suffering from epilepsy due to which she used to fell on the ground and used to suffer some injuries. On account of aforesaid ailment sometimes she used to suffer from depression also. The present applicants were taking care of their daughter-in-law properly. When their daughter-in-law gave birth to a child, all medical expenses had been borne by the applicants themselves. On account of aforesaid illness sometimes the behaviour of their daughter-in-law became unusual and in that situation she used to go to her

¶9

parental place. However, the present applicants used to resolve the dispute amicably. Once the family dispute reached to the Mahila Thana, Sultanpur where the parties entered into compromise. Learned counsel has shown the statement of some independent witnesses who are Panch witnesses wherein it has been indicated that the victim (since deceased) was suffering from epilepsy.

¶10

On account of aforesaid F.I.R. the entire family is in judicial custody / jail, resultant thereof the minor son of their son and daughter-in-law aged about 1.5 years is not being looked after properly and anyhow their married daughter is looking after the boy. Learned counsel has submitted that if the present applicants are released on bail, they would be able to look after their only grandson properly. The applicant no. 1 being a lady and the applicant no. 2 being an old aged ailing persons may be given the benefit of section 437 Cr.P.C.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicants has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that the applicants relation with the victim (since deceased) were very cordial and they have never demanded any dowry from her or her family members, both the present applicants being old aged persons are suffering from various ailments mainly age related ailments, the victim (since deceased) was suffering from epilepsy due to which she used to fell on the ground and used to suffer some injuries, the statement of some independent witnesses who are Panch witnesses wherein it has been indicated that the victim (since deceased) was suffering from epilepsy, as the entire family is in judicial custody /

¶14

jail, resultant thereof the minor son of their son and daughter-in-law aged about 1.5 years is not being looked after properly, the applicant no. 1 being a lady and the applicant no. 2 being an old aged ailing persons may be given the benefit of section 437 Cr.P.C and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicants that they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶15

Let the applicants Lalmani & Hausila Prasad Tiwari, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their 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:-

¶16

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶17

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iv) The applicants 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 absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

(v) The applicants shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

¶21

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 10.5.2024/Om

¶23

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lalmani and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalmani and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Arvind Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

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

Asha Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Chhote Lal Pal (Meth) and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Work Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Sabir Alias Akram and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lko.