Smt. Suneeta Shukla vs State Of U.P. on 27 October, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

?Court No. – 12

Case :- BAIL No. – 8928 of 2017

Applicant :- Smt. Suneeta Shukla

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Smriti

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

Hon’ble Mrs. Rekha Dikshit,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that accused applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. Accused applicant is mother in law of deceased. She is aged about 65 years and she is sick.  She has never made any  demand of dowry. There is no specific allegation against the accused applicant. There is no  eye witness account  of the alleged incident. The accused applican is languishing in jail since  19.6.2017. It is next submitted that the applicant is neither a previous convict nor she has any criminal history. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses . In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

Let the applicant Smt. Suneeta Shukla involved in Case Crime No. 498A, 304B IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Harpalpur, District Hardoi 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

Order Date :- 27.10.2017

GSY

 

 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *