Allahabad High Court
Smt. Ramdeyee & Another vs State Of U.P. on 12 August, 2013
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2255 of 2013
Appellant :- Smt. Ramdeyee & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Singh,Suraj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Counter affidavit as well as objection filed on behalf of State are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and have been gone through the record.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant no.1 is the mother in-law and the appellant no.2 is the father in-law of the deceased. Both the appellants are living separately and have been falsely implicated with the allegations that they had demanded dowry and on account of ill treatment the sister of the complainant was done to death by the appellants. The applicants have been convicted for seven years under Section 304-B IPC. The husband of the deceased has already been enlarged on bail who have also been convicted under Section 304-B IPC for seven years. The doctor has opined that the death of the victim, Vinita Devi has occurred due to asphyxia on account of hanging. The victim has committed suicide as she had lost her parents. The court below has convicted the appellants under Section 304-B IPC. The conviction of the appellants is against the evidence of record. The appellants were on bail during trial and had not misused the liberty of bail. Now the appellants are in jail since the date of conviction i.e. 30.4.2013. They are aged persons. There is no likelihood of early hearing of appeal in near future because there is dockets of pendency of old appeals. The purpose for filing the appeal would be frustrated as the chances of early hearing of the appeal is far flung, therefore the appellants may be released on bail during the pendency of appeal. In case they are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended that the victim has died in the house of her in laws within a very short span of one year of marriage and there were specific allegations with regard to the constant demand of dowry and ill treatment, therefore the appellants do not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the appellants, namely, Smt. Ramdeyee and Kamala Chauhan, convicted and sentenced in Session Trial No.980 of 2010, State Vs. Shivpujan Chauhan & others, arising out of case crime no.66 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Chaubeypur, District Varanasi, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The photocopies of the bonds so furnished be transmitted to this Court to be kept on record of the appeal.
Since record has already been received, the office is directed to prepare the paper books and list the appeal for hearing in due course.
Order Date :- 12.8.2013
Mustaqeem.
