High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90513 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14923 of 2025 Applicant :- Leelawati Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lavlesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Lavlesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Leelawati Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 145 of 2024, under Section 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S. Baburi, District- Chandauli. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that marriage of the deceased/Smt. Soni Vishwakarma, the sister of the informant was solemnized with Jitendra Vishwakarma the son of the applicant around 1-1/2 years back. It is argued that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including the applicant. It is argued that the husband of the deceased has been arrested and is in jail. It is argued that in the F.I.R. there is allegation of demand of dowry but there is no specification whatsoever regarding the said demand. It is argued that the F.I.R. was lodged against four persons but the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and co-accused Jitendra Vishwakarma the husband of the deceased, whereas Devar and elder nanad of the deceased have been exonerated by the police, para-8 of the affidavit and annexure no.5 have been placed for the same. It is argued that since charge sheet in the matter has been submitted there are no chances of the applicant tempering with the evidence or not co-operating in the investigation. It is argued that the cause of death as opined by the doctor is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. It is further argued that except ligature mark no other bodily injury was found on the body of the deceased. It is argued that the applicant has been made accused in the present case because of she being a family member of the husband of the deceased. It is further argued that the applicant is a widow lady and is entitled to the benefit of Section 480 BNSS. The applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para-21 of the affidavit and is in jail since 30.12.2024. 5. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail. 6. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. The applicant is a lady and such she is entitled to the benefit of Section 480 BNSS. Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. Except ligature mark no other bodily injury was found on the body of the deceased. In the F.I.R. there is allegation of demand of dowry but there is no specification whatsoever regarding the said demand. The F.I.R. was lodged against four persons but the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and co-accused Jitendra Vishwakarma the husband of the deceased, whereas Devar and elder nanad of the deceased have been exonerated by the police. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 8. Let the applicant- Leelawati Devi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if 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 209 BNS, 2023. (v) 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 BNSS, 2023. 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 and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 BNS, 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. 9. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. 10. The bail application is allowed.
Decision
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Naresh Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad