SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sameena vs State Of U.P. on 3 January, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 48681 of 2019

Applicant :- Sameena

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Ali Hasan,Istiyaq Ali

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vikash Tripathi

Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State, is taken on record.

Heard Sri Istiyaq Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Chandra Maurya holding brief of Sri Vikash Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. She has falsely been implicated in the present case. The FIR of the alleged incident has been lodged against 3 persons including the applicant making general allegation. There was no dispute of demand of dowry. The applicant has not harassed or tortured to the deceased. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. In postmortem report the cause of death has been shown asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. The deceased has committed suicide herself. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. At the time of alleged incident the applicant was living separate from the deceased and her husband. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of husband of the deceased. The applicant is an old lady aged about 60 years. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 31.8.2019.

Per contra; learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the deceased died an unnatural death within one year of her marriage. She was harassed and tortured by the applicant and other co-accused for non fulfillment of demand of dowry, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

Let the applicant Sameena involved in Case Crime No. 665 of 2019, under Sectionsection 498A, Section304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Handia, District Prayagraj be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. She shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall cooperate with the trial.

3. She shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

Order Date :- 3.1.2020

Masarrat

 

 

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation