High Court
Case Details
Appellant :- Saira @ Shakeela Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Sinha,Ram Chandra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Nishant Srivastava Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1 of 2024(B) Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record. The instant bail application has been moved by the appellant/applicant, namely, Ansar, who is convict of Sessions Trial No. 1049 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 103 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 306/34 IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station Auras, District Unnao and convicting and sentencing the appellant to 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to a further period of simple imprisonment for 1 year u/s 306/34 IPC, vide judgment and order dated 08.10.2024 passed by learned Additional District&Sessions Judge, Court Room No.1, Unnao, praying to release him on bail, during pendency of the instant appeal. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant-appellant is that initially an FIR was lodged under section 304B and after recording the statement of Maulvi and the witnesses of facts, the Investigating Officer found that the marriage was performed seven years ago, then he converted the matter under section 302 of IPC, but after the investigation, the chargesheet was filed under section 306 of IPC and the charges were framed under same section by the learned trial court. He added that this is an astonishing fact that the learned trial court without any evidence has passed the judgment and order while convicting the appellant-applicant. He has drawn attention towards the finding of the learned trial court at page 31 of the judgment impugned and submitted that four witnesses of fact were never produced by the prosecution for deposing their testimony, contrary, the learned trial court, on the basis of the statement recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. as the part of the police diary, has convicted the appellant-applicant. He submits that it shows the lack of knowledge of the learned trial court that the statement of the witnesses under section 161 of Cr.P.C. before the police is not admissible as per the provision of the Evidence Act. He also added that the whole trial vitiates in the eyes of the law and he has also shown the perversity in the judgment and order dated 08.10.2024. He also added that the judgment has been written in a very superfluous and cavalier manner as the age of the mother-in-law is transcribed as 40 years and her sons are shown as 32 and 34 years, respectively, which itself shows that the learned trial court has not even applied its mind while pen down the judgment. Concluding his arguments, he submits that this matter would not lead to the punishment and the applicant- appellant would suffer for her no fault. He also added that the applicant was on bail during the trial and she never misused the liberty of bail and she has no previous criminal history. He added that the appellant is in jail since 08.10.2024 and she undertakes that she will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted to her and would cooperate in the hearing of the appeal. Thus, submission is that the applicant/appellant may be enlarged on bail during pendency of the appeal. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the informant has opposed the contentions aforesaid, but he could not dispute the fact that the learned trial court has erroneously considered the statements of the witnesses of facts recorded under section 161 of CrPC. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has also supported the version of counsel for the informant. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that initially the first information report was lodged under section 304B IPC and once the Investigating Officer, after recording the statement of Maulvi and other witnesses found that after seven years of marriage the said incident has taken place, he filed the chargesheet under section 306 of IPC, thereafter, the matter proceeded, but the findings of the trial court is evident that the same is against the mandate of the provision of Evidence Act with respect to the admissibility of the evidence. The finding is also evident that on the basis of the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, under section 161 of the Cr.P.C, the applicant-appellant has been convicted. It is a perplexing fact that the trial court from the very inception of writing the judgment has mentioned the age mother-in-law is 40 years and her sons is 32 and 34 years of age respectively, though not so relevant but can be read conjointly in favour of the applicant- appellant. The applicant was on bail during the trial and she never misused the liberty of bail and the applicant has no previous criminal history. The appellant-applicant is in jail since 08.10.2024 and she undertakes that she will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the hearing of the appeal, therefore, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of bail. In result, the bail application of the applicant/appellant is allowed. Let the applicant/appellant- Saira @ Shakeela, involved in aforesaid case, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (ii) The applicant/appellant shall cooperate in early disposal of the appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The applicant/appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. The fine, imposed by the trial court is stayed. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bonds, the lower court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record. [Order on Appeal] List/put up this appeal in fourth week of October, 2025 for final hearing. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Mayank
Appellant :- Saira @ Shakeela Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Sinha,Ram Chandra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Nishant Srivastava Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1 of 2024(B) Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record. The instant bail application has been moved by the appellant/applicant, namely, Ansar, who is convict of Sessions Trial No. 1049 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 103 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 306/34 IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station Auras, District Unnao and convicting and sentencing the appellant to 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to a further period of simple imprisonment for 1 year u/s 306/34 IPC, vide judgment and order dated 08.10.2024 passed by learned Additional District&Sessions Judge, Court Room No.1, Unnao, praying to release him on bail, during pendency of the instant appeal. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant-appellant is that initially an FIR was lodged under section 304B and after recording the statement of Maulvi and the witnesses of facts, the Investigating Officer found that the marriage was performed seven years ago, then he converted the matter under section 302 of IPC, but after the investigation, the chargesheet was filed under section 306 of IPC and the charges were framed under same section by the learned trial court. He added that this is an astonishing fact that the learned trial court without any evidence has passed the judgment and order while convicting the appellant-applicant. He has drawn attention towards the finding of the learned trial court at page 31 of the judgment impugned and submitted that four witnesses of fact were never produced by the prosecution for deposing their testimony, contrary, the learned trial court, on the basis of the statement recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. as the part of the police diary, has convicted the appellant-applicant. He submits that it shows the lack of knowledge of the learned trial court that the statement of the witnesses under section 161 of Cr.P.C. before the police is not admissible as per the provision of the Evidence Act. He also added that the whole trial vitiates in the eyes of the law and he has also shown the perversity in the judgment and order dated 08.10.2024. He also added that the judgment has been written in a very superfluous and cavalier manner as the age of the mother-in-law is transcribed as 40 years and her sons are shown as 32 and 34 years, respectively, which itself shows that the learned trial court has not even applied its mind while pen down the judgment. Concluding his arguments, he submits that this matter would not lead to the punishment and the applicant- appellant would suffer for her no fault. He also added that the applicant was on bail during the trial and she never misused the liberty of bail and she has no previous criminal history. He added that the appellant is in jail since 08.10.2024 and she undertakes that she will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted to her and would cooperate in the hearing of the appeal. Thus, submission is that the applicant/appellant may be enlarged on bail during pendency of the appeal. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the informant has opposed the contentions aforesaid, but he could not dispute the fact that the learned trial court has erroneously considered the statements of the witnesses of facts recorded under section 161 of CrPC. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has also supported the version of counsel for the informant. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that initially the first information report was lodged under section 304B IPC and once the Investigating Officer, after recording the statement of Maulvi and other witnesses found that after seven years of marriage the said incident has taken place, he filed the chargesheet under section 306 of IPC, thereafter, the matter proceeded, but the findings of the trial court is evident that the same is against the mandate of the provision of Evidence Act with respect to the admissibility of the evidence. The finding is also evident that on the basis of the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, under section 161 of the Cr.P.C, the applicant-appellant has been convicted. It is a perplexing fact that the trial court from the very inception of writing the judgment has mentioned the age mother-in-law is 40 years and her sons is 32 and 34 years of age respectively, though not so relevant but can be read conjointly in favour of the applicant- appellant. The applicant was on bail during the trial and she never misused the liberty of bail and the applicant has no previous criminal history. The appellant-applicant is in jail since 08.10.2024 and she undertakes that she will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the hearing of the appeal, therefore, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of bail. In result, the bail application of the applicant/appellant is allowed. Let the applicant/appellant- Saira @ Shakeela, involved in aforesaid case, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (ii) The applicant/appellant shall cooperate in early disposal of the appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The applicant/appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. The fine, imposed by the trial court is stayed. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bonds, the lower court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record. [Order on Appeal] List/put up this appeal in fourth week of October, 2025 for final hearing. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Mayank