Ramvati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13094

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1912 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ramvati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Aakash Srivastava,Apoorv Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents.

¶8

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Ramvati) is languishing in jail since 01.02.2025 in Case Crime No.494 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kotwali City, District-Hardoi.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as she has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.). Attention has been drawn towards the annexure no. 3, which is a compromise between the deceased and her husband dated 10.08.2023, wherein, it was decided that the deceased would live with her husband separately and she will not live with her father-in-law and mother-in-law. In such compromise deed, specific allegation has been levelled against the husband of the deceased that he is a drunkard and after consuming liquor, he used to beat her mercilessly. No specific role has been attributed to the present applicant. The present applicant was having cordial relation with her daughter-in-law (since deceased) and she has never demanded any dowry from her or her family members. So as to implicate the entire family, the present applicant who is mother-in-law, has been implicated in this case. The cause of death is unknown and the viscera is preserved. There are two antemortem injury but the present applicant is absolutely unaware as to how the deceased received such injuries as she has been living separately since 2003. The present applicant is having no previous criminal history. The charge-sheet has been filed and she undertakes that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted and shall abide by all terms and

¶10

conditions of bail order. Besides, being a lady she may be given the benefit of Section 437 CrPC/480 BNSS.

¶11

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the aforesaid prayer of learned counsel for the applicant but he could not disputed the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the contents and allegations of the F.I.R., other material available on record, no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant, the charge-sheet has been filed, the cause of death is unknown and the viscera has been preserved, the present applicant was living separately since 2003, the undertaking of the present applicant that she shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly, the fact that she being a lady she may be given the benefit of Section 437 CrPC/480 BNSS, I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail.

¶13

Let the present applicant (Ramvati) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) 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 absence of the

¶18

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 her in accordance with law.

¶19

It is made clear that since the present applicant has been granted bail considering the fact that she is a lady and no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant and she being a lady is given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C., therefore, the parity of this order may not be claimed by the other co-accused persons.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid terms, the bail application is allowed .

¶21

Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Anurag

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramvati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramvati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mayaram Kori Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Lko and 3 Others

Nadiya Khaja Shaikh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Tahseen and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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

Ankit @ Chhotu @ Amit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Rajneesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another