Allowed

Nirmala Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2025BAIL/536/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by the mother-in-law accused in a dowry death case arising from cruelty for a gold chain demand. The Court noted her separate residence from the husband, lack of criminal history and absence of exceptional circumstances against bail, and allowed regular bail subject to conditions including presence at trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Nirmala Devi ordered released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, with conditions against tampering with evidence and requiring presence at trial stages

Nirmala Devi vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:3855

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 536 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Nirmala Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Nath Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Kailash Nath Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 424 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) of B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Line Bazar, District - Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

PROSECUTION STORY:

¶10

The marriage of the son of the applicant was solemnized with the sister of the informant as per Hindu Rites in the year 2022. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of a gold chain as dowry thereby leading to her death on 24.08.2024 at 07:00 PM.

¶11

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶12

The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.

¶13

The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶14

The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased person and lives separately to the husband of the deceased person. Much reliance has been placed on the statement of four eye-witnesses, namely, Dharma Devi, Sonhara Devi, Sehdei and Heerawati Devi,

¶15

who have categorically stated that the applicant used to live separately to his son.

¶16

In the postmortem report, the cause of death of deceased was found to be haemorrhage shock and coma as a result of ante mortem blunt trauma abdomen. One rib was found fractured and her spleen was found ruptured. It is argued that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The case of the applicant is at a different footing to the case of other co-accused persons.

¶17

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

¶18

The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.09.2024, having no criminal history to her credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶19

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE:

¶20

The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶21

CONCLUSION:

¶22

Learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2022(6) SCC 599 and has categorically stated that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.

¶23

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶24

The well-known principle of " Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty, " gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

¶25

A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 .

¶26

Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 , has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that " bail is a rule and jail is an exception ".

¶27

Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶28

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶30

Let the applicant- Nirmala Devi , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶31

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶32

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./ 351BNSS 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 her in accordance with law.

¶33

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

¶34

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶35

Order Date:- 8.1.2025 Siddhant

¶36

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶37

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nirmala Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajan Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sita vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Yadav Alias Shakeel Yadav vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Bhatnagar vs State of U.P.

Sourav Nagar vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Gaur vs State of U.P.