Smt. Neelam Vs Stat of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11687

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8910 of 2024

Applicant :- Smt. Neelam Opposite Party :- Stat Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Farooq Ayoob,Km. Pooja Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

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

¶7

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Smt. Neelam) is languishing in jail since 01.11.2022 in Case Crime No.330 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 326, 302, 304-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Lonikatra, District-Barabanki.

¶8

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.). The present applicant was having cordial relation with her daughterin-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. It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged by the informant, who is the mother of the deceased, on the basis of an information allegedly provided to her by the deceased pertaining to the demand of dowry and commission of cruelty in lieu thereof against all the accused persons named in the FIR. In the Statement of P.W. 4, Ms. Mahima Mishra, Tehsildar Ramnagar District Barabanki has clearly stated that the deceased, Seema has not taken the name of her husband or her mother-in-law while recording the dying declaration.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 conditions of bail order. Besides, being a lady she may be given the benefit of Section 437 CrPC.

¶9

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the aforesaid prayer of learned counsel for the

¶10

applicant but he could not disputed the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

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, in the statement of P.W. 4, Ms. Mahima Mishra, Tehsildar Ramnagar District Barabanki has clearly stated that the deceased, Seema has not taken the name of her husband or her mother-in-law while recording the dying declaration, 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, I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail.

¶12

Let the present applicant (Smt. Neelam) 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:-

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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 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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Anurag

¶20

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

Smt. Neelam v. Stat of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neelam v. Stat of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

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

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

Vishal Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shivam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shivam vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Jayhind Rajbhar @ Lalu Vs State of U.P. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others