Allahabad High Court
Barfi Devi vs State Of U.P. on 1 September, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26354 of 2022 Applicant :- Barfi Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Majahar Ali,Maheshwari Prasad Pandey,Satish Chandra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Archana Agrawal,Mazhar Shakeel Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The accused- applicant is involved in Case Crime No. 62 of 2022, under Section 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Gopiganj, District- Bhadohi.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the allegations are general. The co accused, the brother -in-law of the deceased, has been granted bail by the coordinate bench of this court. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the FIR. As per parivar register, the present applicant used to live separately with her husband. The applicant is in jail from 16.5.2022, hence, the prayer for bail is made.
Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submitted that from the post mortem report, it is clear that five injuries are found on the person of deceased and the cause of death is found asphyxia as a result of ante mortem throttling. It is submitted that when the demand of four wheeler could not be fulfilled by the parents of the deceased all the accused persons harassed the deceased and put her to death.
Learned counsel for the applicant claims that the brother-in-law Dheeraj Kumar has been granted bail on the ground of separate living. The present applicant also used to live separately along with her husband from the deceased and her husband. In support of his version, a copy of parivar register has been filed wherein house number of the deceased and her husband is mentioned as house no.200-C and house number of the present applicant and her husband house is mentioned as 200.
It is argued that both houses are separate from the copy of parivar register, it is clear that Gram Panchayat and Nyay Panchayat of both the houses are the same and numbers as 200 and 200-C cannot be said to be separate houses rather house no. 200C shall be said to be a part of the house no.200. The present applicant is mother -in-law of the deceased and her status in the house is different from that of Dheeraj Kumar.
Thus, after perusing the record in the light of submissions advanced at the bar, taking overall view of the facts and circumstance of the case, the nature of accusation and the period of detention already undergone without commenting on the merit of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
The bail application of the applicant is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 1.9.2022 Gss