Allahabad High Court
Smt. Samundara Devi vs State Of U.P. on 28 January, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 29 Case :- BAIL No. - 1017 of 2021 Applicant :- Smt. Samundara Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant-Smt. Samundara Devi for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 111 of 2020, under Sections 323, 498-A, 304-B, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sangramgarh, District Pratapgarh, during trial.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and has been involved in this case only on the basis of her relation with the husband of the deceased, who is the son of the applicant.
It is further submitted that in the F.I.R., the allegations with regard to the demand of Rs. two lacs has been levelled against the husband of the deceased namely, Mukesh Soni and general allegations has been levelled against the applicant and other co-accused persons and even if the allegations of the F.I.R. is taken on its face value, the applicant could not be the beneficiary of the dowry as it has been clearly stated in the F.I.R. that the demand of Rs. 02 lacs was being made for the purpose of establishing some business by the husband of the deceased namely, Mukesh Soni.
It is further submitted that applicant is aged about 60 years and since the marriage of her son with the deceased, was not having any concern with their family, which is apparent by the extract of the 'Parivar Registers' filed with the bail application.
It is further submitted that the allegation of murder by strangulation as mentioned in the F.I.R. is patently absurd and wrong, as in the postmortem report of the deceased, it has been clearly mentioned that the deceased had died due to 'asphyxia' which had occurred due to antemortem hanging and, therefore, as the deceased had died in the premises which was being occupied by them (husband, deceased and their children), Applicant is not having any concern with that and she has been falsely implicated in this case.
It is also submitted that charge-sheet in the matter has already been submitted and the applicant is in jail in this matter since 22.06.2020 and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail she may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer for bail of the applicant, but could not controvert the other factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.
Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant I find substance only for the purpose of releasing the applicant on bail. The bail application is, thus, allowed.
Let the applicant-Smt. Samundara Devi involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 28.1.2021 Praveen