High Court

(Order on C.M. Application No. 1 of 2024- First Bail Application)

1. Heard Sri Shashank Tilhari, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, Sri Dheeraj Awasthi, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been moved by the appellant-applicant/ Anita Sahu, who is convicted of Sessions Trial No.252 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No.210 of 2015, under Sections 498A and 304-B of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Gangaghat, District Unnao and sentenced for seven years' rigorous imprisonment pertaining to Section 304-B of the I.P.C. with fine stipulation, vide judgment and order dated 07.08.2024 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Unnao, praying to release her on bail, during pendency of instant appeal.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Rakesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Ram Swaroop Sahu, the informant alleged that the marriage of his daughter (deceased) was solemnized with Yogesh Sahu and he had given Rs.5 lakhs to the husband and in-laws. Initially, the complainant's daughter had a peaceful marital life. However, after some time, her in-laws began harassing her for additional dowry. The deceased also informed her mother that she was being harrassed by her husband Yogesh Sahu and in-laws. On 22.02.2015, the husband of the deceased along with in-laws forced the complainant's daughter to return to her parental home. When she refused, she was physically assaulted and she reported the incident to the complainant over phone. On 23.02.2015 at around 05:30 P.M., one Mr. Sharma who resides near the complainant's house called the complainant on his mobile and informed him that his daughter had been burned and was in critical condition. Upon receiving the news, the complainant attempted to contact his son-in-law (Yogesh Sahu) on his phone, but his mobile was switched off. On being panicked, the complainant rushed to his daughter's matrimonial home where he found his daughter's body lying outside the house and her entire body was burnt.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant that applicant is mother- in-law and there is no evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death and as per the post-mortem report also, there is no ante-mortem injury found on the body of the deceased except for the burn injury. Further submits that there is no ample evidence against the present appellant/applicant that she had tortured the deceased ever.

5. Counsel for the appellant/ applicant has also drawn our attention towards the statement of D.W. Guddu @ Ashish that the appellant/ applicant including the deceased and Yogesh Sahu had gone to participate in a marriage ceremony and after two days the deceased and her husband returned back, whereas the appellant/ applicant did not return but this evidence has been ignored by the learned Trial Court

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant further states that appellant/ applicant was living separately with her husband, which is apparent from the statement of P.W.-8 recorded before the learned Trial Court and that too was not considered in its right perspective.

7. It has also been submitted that the appellant/ applicant is a woman and was on bail during the trial and she has not misused the liberty granted to her. The appellant/ applicant is not having any criminal history and it is undertaken that she will cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the Appeal also and her counsel shall remain present before this Court as and when the appeal would be listed for hearing.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has submitted that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death and the present applicant/ applicant including other family members have tortured the deceased and there are 100% burn injuries found over the body of the deceased. He added that as per the post-mortem report, the stomach of the deceased was empty and the deceased was made to starved for five days prior to her death.

9. Learned A.G.A., however, also opposes the prayer for bail of the appellant/ applicant, and submitted that the plea of Alibi has not been accepted by learned Trial Court. It has also been submitted that there is an ample evidence against the appellant/ applicant and learned Trial Court has rightly considered the evidence adduced before it, therefore, no interference is warranted.

10. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we find force in the submissions made by learned counsels for the appellant/applicant sufficient enough to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant.

11. In result, the bail application of the appellant/ applicant is allowed.

12. Let the appellant-applicant Anita Sahu, involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) The fine amount shall be deposited with the trial court by the appellant within one month from her actual release from prison, if the same has not been earlier deposited. (ii) The appellant/ applicant shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The appellant/ applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

14. The trial court shall transmit the bail bonds submitted by the appellant to this Court, forthwith. ( Order on Appeal)

1. Office is directed to prepare the paper-book.

2. List this Appeal in August, 2025 for hearing. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Rahul

(Order on C.M. Application No. 1 of 2024- First Bail Application)

1. Heard Sri Shashank Tilhari, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, Sri Dheeraj Awasthi, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been moved by the appellant-applicant/ Anita Sahu, who is convicted of Sessions Trial No.252 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No.210 of 2015, under Sections 498A and 304-B of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Gangaghat, District Unnao and sentenced for seven years' rigorous imprisonment pertaining to Section 304-B of the I.P.C. with fine stipulation, vide judgment and order dated 07.08.2024 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Unnao, praying to release her on bail, during pendency of instant appeal.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Rakesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Ram Swaroop Sahu, the informant alleged that the marriage of his daughter (deceased) was solemnized with Yogesh Sahu and he had given Rs.5 lakhs to the husband and in-laws. Initially, the complainant's daughter had a peaceful marital life. However, after some time, her in-laws began harassing her for additional dowry. The deceased also informed her mother that she was being harrassed by her husband Yogesh Sahu and in-laws. On 22.02.2015, the husband of the deceased along with in-laws forced the complainant's daughter to return to her parental home. When she refused, she was physically assaulted and she reported the incident to the complainant over phone. On 23.02.2015 at around 05:30 P.M., one Mr. Sharma who resides near the complainant's house called the complainant on his mobile and informed him that his daughter had been burned and was in critical condition. Upon receiving the news, the complainant attempted to contact his son-in-law (Yogesh Sahu) on his phone, but his mobile was switched off. On being panicked, the complainant rushed to his daughter's matrimonial home where he found his daughter's body lying outside the house and her entire body was burnt.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant that applicant is mother- in-law and there is no evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death and as per the post-mortem report also, there is no ante-mortem injury found on the body of the deceased except for the burn injury. Further submits that there is no ample evidence against the present appellant/applicant that she had tortured the deceased ever.

5. Counsel for the appellant/ applicant has also drawn our attention towards the statement of D.W. Guddu @ Ashish that the appellant/ applicant including the deceased and Yogesh Sahu had gone to participate in a marriage ceremony and after two days the deceased and her husband returned back, whereas the appellant/ applicant did not return but this evidence has been ignored by the learned Trial Court

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant further states that appellant/ applicant was living separately with her husband, which is apparent from the statement of P.W.-8 recorded before the learned Trial Court and that too was not considered in its right perspective.

7. It has also been submitted that the appellant/ applicant is a woman and was on bail during the trial and she has not misused the liberty granted to her. The appellant/ applicant is not having any criminal history and it is undertaken that she will cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the Appeal also and her counsel shall remain present before this Court as and when the appeal would be listed for hearing.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has submitted that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death and the present applicant/ applicant including other family members have tortured the deceased and there are 100% burn injuries found over the body of the deceased. He added that as per the post-mortem report, the stomach of the deceased was empty and the deceased was made to starved for five days prior to her death.

9. Learned A.G.A., however, also opposes the prayer for bail of the appellant/ applicant, and submitted that the plea of Alibi has not been accepted by learned Trial Court. It has also been submitted that there is an ample evidence against the appellant/ applicant and learned Trial Court has rightly considered the evidence adduced before it, therefore, no interference is warranted.

10. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we find force in the submissions made by learned counsels for the appellant/applicant sufficient enough to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant.

11. In result, the bail application of the appellant/ applicant is allowed.

12. Let the appellant-applicant Anita Sahu, involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) The fine amount shall be deposited with the trial court by the appellant within one month from her actual release from prison, if the same has not been earlier deposited. (ii) The appellant/ applicant shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The appellant/ applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

14. The trial court shall transmit the bail bonds submitted by the appellant to this Court, forthwith. ( Order on Appeal)

1. Office is directed to prepare the paper-book.

2. List this Appeal in August, 2025 for hearing. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Rahul