Smt Hukumat v. State of U.P
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022…
Judgment
Heard Sri Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.322 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80, 123 B.N.S. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mainather, District- Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased person. The informant is Panch witness no.2 in the inquest proceedings undertaken on the same day of the death of the deceased person, i.e. on 13.9.2024. Learned counsel has stated that the informant has not whispered a single word regarding demand of dowry or cruelty being met to the deceased person by the applicant or other co-accused persons, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication.
Operative part
Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the cause of death was found to be poisoning as aluminum phosphide is found in the viscera of the deceased person. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.9.2024 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that earlier on also there was dispute between the parties over demand of dowry and the matter was settled on 1.7.2024 between the parties, which is on record.
The Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs The State of Bihar, reported in 2022 (6) SCC 599 has categorically stated that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.
In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Smt Hukumat, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S. 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 80, 85, 123; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 16 Jan 2025. The bench was KRISHAN PAHAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.