Allowed

Smt. Guddi @ Vachan Devi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2024CRLA/417/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction under Sections 498A and 304B IPC for a death by aluminium phosphide poisoning. Relying on a prior case holding such poisoning deaths not homicidal absent injuries, the court granted the appellants bail during the appeal's pendency, subject to conditions including deposit of fine.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Guddi @ Vachan Devi and Another vs State of U.P… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 417 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Guddi @ Vachan Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

(Order on Memo of Appeal)

¶7

Heard.

¶8

Admit.

¶9

Summon the trial court record.

¶10

List this case after eight weeks.

¶11

(Order on C.M. Application No.1 of 2024)

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Mohd. Asif Khan, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondentState and perused the record.

¶13

This is the first bail application. A prayer for bail has been made by the appellants in this criminal appeal, which has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 25.01.2024 passed by Additional District & Session Judge IV / Special Judge Gangster Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal S.T. No. 609 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 354 of 2013, Police Station - Neemgaon, District Lakhimpur Kheri convicting and sentencing the appellants U/s 498A IPC for two years' Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, failing to deposit the amount of fine two months additional Simple Imprisonment, and U/s 304B IPC for ten years' Rigorous Imprisonment and

¶14

fine of Rs.2,000/- each, failing to deposit the amount of fine one month' additional imprisonment.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the instant bail application has been filed by the appellant Nos.1 & 2 who are said to be mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased respectively and they have been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶16

The argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court in Session Trial No.609 of 2014, a copy of which is filed as annexure 1 to the appeal, would indicate that the learned court has specifically found that the death of the deceased has occurred on account of aluminum phosphide poisoning. It is also been indicated in the said judgment that no injury has been found on the body of the deceased.

¶17

Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in the Criminal Appeal No.4603 of 2013 in Re: Jai Prakash Dubey

¶18

Vs. State of U.P. dated 31.03.2017, the argument is that this Court in the said case has held that where the death of the deceased has occurred on account of poisoning and aluminium phosphide has been found in the viscera report as such, due to its bad smell, it cannot be consumed under dilution of any other drink or eatable things and in the absence of any injury on the body of the deceased in the postmortem report, it cannot be said that it has been administered and thus, it cannot be said that death of the deceased was homicidal.

¶19

The further contention is that both the appellant was falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that both the appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail as specifically averred in the memo of appeal. He

¶20

further submits that there is no possibility of conclusion of the appeal in near future, hence, the appellant is entitled for bail.

¶21

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for bail and submits that conviction of the appellants is on the basis of evidence on record.

¶22

Having heard the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A and perused the material brought on record, this Court is of the view that appellants are entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of criminal appeal before this Court.

¶23

Hence, prima facie, case for bail is made out, at this stage.

¶24

Accordingly, the application for bail is allowed.

¶25

Let the appellants- Smt. Guddi @ Vachan Devi and Dayaram Verma involved in aforesaid case be released on bail each on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount subject to following conditions:-

¶26

(i) Fine imposed by the trial court shall be deposited by the appellant at the time of his release.

¶27

(ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment.

¶28

(iii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶30

So far as the fine imposed on the appellants is concerned, the said fine be deposited within ten days from their actual

¶31

release.

¶32

As soon as personal bonds and sureties are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the trial court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal.

¶33

Order Date :- 5.7.2024 S. Shivhare

¶34

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Guddi @ Vachan Devi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Guddi @ Vachan Devi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dhrub Baba Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Shrawan Alias Sharwan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Amit Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

Manish Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Parmanand Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home