Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12674 of 2024 Shashi Alias Ramkali State of U.P. and Another Versus .....Appellant(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) : Amit Kumar Pandey, Indra Raj : G.A. Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.10.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Agra in Bail Application No. 5879 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 23 of 2023, under Sections 498, 304-B, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Shahganj, District Agra. 3. According to the prosecution case, the complainant gave a written report to the police station stating that he is from the Jatav community . His daughter, Kajal Soni, had married Lakhan, son of Rajendra Prasad Kushwaha, in an Arya Samaj temple on December 4, 2018, five years ago. After the marriage, his daughter's in-laws, including her husband Lakhan, father-in-law Rajendra Prasad Kushwaha, mother-in-law Shashi, and an unknown brother-in-law, began harassing her for dowry. They allegedly told her, "Your father is a government employee, ask him for money and give it to us". The complainant gave his son-in-law one lakh rupees in 2020. The father- in-law, Rajendra, repeatedly called him, demanding another two lakh rupees, and threatened to kick his daughter out if the demand was not met. The deceased had also cried and told her father that she was being severely beaten and pressured for money. She also 2 CRLA No. 12674 of 2024 alleged that her mother-in-law, Shashi, used caste-denoting words like "Chamariya". On January 14, 2023, at about 9:30 AM, an unknown person called the complainant, informing him that his daughter had been severely beaten and hanged by her in-laws. Upon receiving the information, the complainant rushed to his daughter's in- laws' house, but everyone had fled. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She is the mother-in-law of the deceased and had no role to play in the unfortunate incident. It is argued that the deceased had married appellant’s son out of her own choice in an Arya Samaj temple, against the wishes of both families, and thereafter remained under mental stress. It is further submitted that the deceased was short- tempered and had threatened to commit suicide on several occasions. The appellant has been in custody since 04.10.2024 and has no criminal history. The charge sheet has already been filed, and trial is now proceeding for evidence; hence, further custodial detention of the appellant is not warranted. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal, contending that the death of a married woman within seven years of marriage, coupled with injuries on her body and allegations of dowry demand, constitute a serious offense, and that the appellant being named in the F.I.R. cannot be granted bail at this stage. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The appellant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The main allegation of demand of dowry and harassment is primarily against the husband and father-in-law of the deceased. The appellant is a woman, and her role appears distinguishable. The charge sheet has already been filed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for conclusion. The appellant has remained in custody since 04.10.2024 and has no past criminal antecedents. In these circumstances, prolonged detention of the appellant pending trial would not be justified. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the 3 CRLA No. 12674 of 2024 accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 9. Let the appellant Shashi @ Ramkali involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on 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 appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellant 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 officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before the competent Court. 4 CRLA No. 12674 of 2024 11. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. September 10, 2025 RavindraKSingh (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad