High Court · 2025
Case Details
1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. representing the State and Mr. Naveen Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the complainant. 2-The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 75 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Ramnagar, District-Varanasi. 3-The brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the complainant Rohit, who is brother of the deceased-Priyanka has lodged an F.I.R. on 04.05.2024 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against Avinash, Meena Devi, Akhilesh, Kshama (present applicant) and Rimi, who are husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law (jethani) and sister-in-law (nand) of the deceased-Priyanka making allegation that the marriage of his sister Priyanka was solemnized with Avinash three years ago but after the marriage, his sister was being harassed and tortured in her matrimonial home by the accused persons. After the said marriage, a male child was also born to her but there was no change in the behaviour of the accused persons, therefore, he in order to satisfy their demand gave Rs. 40,000/- to her sister but there was consistent demand of more money. On 04.05.2024, she was done to death on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. F.I.R. also alleges that whenever he talks with his sister, she used to tell him that her sister-in-law and wife of Akhilesh used to mount pressure upon her for additional dowry. 4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is sister-in-law (jethani) of the deceased and she has been falsely implicated in this case. It is next submitted that general allegation of demand of dowry has been made against the applicant whereas she had no concern with the matrimonial affair of the deceased with her husband, who were living separately from the applicant. Much emphasis has been given by contending that after the incident, husband of the applicant gave information to the parents of the deceased. The allegation levelled against the applicant is not supported by any corroborative material. It is also submitted that though similar allegation against Rimi (sister-in-law) was made in the F.I.R. but she has been exonerated and no charge-sheet was submitted against her. It is further pointed out that Akhilesh (husband of the applicant) has also been exonerated from this case and no charge-sheet was submitted against him. Co-accused Meena Devi has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.09.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34488 of 2024, therefore, the applicant who has no criminal antecedent to her credit and is languishing in jail since 06.06.2024 may be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case. 5-Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. but they do not dispute the factual aspects of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that the applicant was living separately along with her husband Akhilesh, who was also nominated as an accused in the F.I.R. but later on, he has been exonerated as his complicity has been found false during investigation. It is also not in dispute that for the first time, information about the death of the deceased was given by the applicant's husband-Akhilesh, which shows natural conduct of husband of the applicant and the same are also one of the relevant factor for considering bail. This Court is of the view that every case turns on its own facts. Even one additional or different fact may make a big difference between the conclusion in two cases, because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In the light of materials evidence on record, I find that the case of the applicant is distinguishable and stands on different footing from the case of co-accused Avinash Kumar (husband of the deceased). 7-Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. 8-Let the applicant-Kshama, 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) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after her release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail. 9-In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Saurabh SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. representing the State and Mr. Naveen Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the complainant. 2-The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 75 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Ramnagar, District-Varanasi. 3-The brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the complainant Rohit, who is brother of the deceased-Priyanka has lodged an F.I.R. on 04.05.2024 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against Avinash, Meena Devi, Akhilesh, Kshama (present applicant) and Rimi, who are husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law (jethani) and sister-in-law (nand) of the deceased-Priyanka making allegation that the marriage of his sister Priyanka was solemnized with Avinash three years ago but after the marriage, his sister was being harassed and tortured in her matrimonial home by the accused persons. After the said marriage, a male child was also born to her but there was no change in the behaviour of the accused persons, therefore, he in order to satisfy their demand gave Rs. 40,000/- to her sister but there was consistent demand of more money. On 04.05.2024, she was done to death on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. F.I.R. also alleges that whenever he talks with his sister, she used to tell him that her sister-in-law and wife of Akhilesh used to mount pressure upon her for additional dowry. 4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is sister-in-law (jethani) of the deceased and she has been falsely implicated in this case. It is next submitted that general allegation of demand of dowry has been made against the applicant whereas she had no concern with the matrimonial affair of the deceased with her husband, who were living separately from the applicant. Much emphasis has been given by contending that after the incident, husband of the applicant gave information to the parents of the deceased. The allegation levelled against the applicant is not supported by any corroborative material. It is also submitted that though similar allegation against Rimi (sister-in-law) was made in the F.I.R. but she has been exonerated and no charge-sheet was submitted against her. It is further pointed out that Akhilesh (husband of the applicant) has also been exonerated from this case and no charge-sheet was submitted against him. Co-accused Meena Devi has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.09.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34488 of 2024, therefore, the applicant who has no criminal antecedent to her credit and is languishing in jail since 06.06.2024 may be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case. 5-Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. but they do not dispute the factual aspects of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that the applicant was living separately along with her husband Akhilesh, who was also nominated as an accused in the F.I.R. but later on, he has been exonerated as his complicity has been found false during investigation. It is also not in dispute that for the first time, information about the death of the deceased was given by the applicant's husband-Akhilesh, which shows natural conduct of husband of the applicant and the same are also one of the relevant factor for considering bail. This Court is of the view that every case turns on its own facts. Even one additional or different fact may make a big difference between the conclusion in two cases, because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In the light of materials evidence on record, I find that the case of the applicant is distinguishable and stands on different footing from the case of co-accused Avinash Kumar (husband of the deceased). 7-Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. 8-Let the applicant-Kshama, 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) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after her release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail. 9-In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Saurabh SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad