Smt. Vichar vs State Of U.P.
2019 Latest Caselaw 4541 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 74
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19454 of 2019
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Vichar
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Priyanka Devi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. The daughter of applicant namely Jayanti Devi was married with deceased Rohit Kumar. The daughter of applicant Jayanti Devi was died on 25.4.2018. In this regard the husband of applicant namely Munna has lodged an FIR against the deceased Rohit Kumar, his father Ravindra and his mother Malti Devi under section 498A, 304B, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act on 27.4.2018. The dead body of the deceased Rohit Kumar was found at the gate of English Medium Primary School. Thereafter, Ravindra, father of Rohit Kumar has lodged an FIR on 14.6.2018 after 7 days of the alleged incident. In FIR it has been mentioned that he had sent the deceased Rohit Kumar with Rs. 1,50,000/- to settle the dispute at the house of applicant. The allegation has been made against applicant and her husband that the applicant and her husband committed his murder by administering poison. In fact, the applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. The deceased had not brought any money at the house of the applicant. He was seen in drunken condition by the witnesses Nripat Singh, Shaukat and Matadeen in the village and thereafter his dead body was found at the gate of English Medium Primary School. The deceased himself has consumed some poisonous substance because he was involved in the dowry death case of daughter of applicant. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. The FIR has been lodged only to make pressure upon the applicant and her husband to compromise in a case of dowry death. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on her pointing out. There is no cogent evidence on record to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. The applicant is a lady aged about 54 years. She has no criminal history and is in jail since 10.4.2019.

Per contra; learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

Let the applicant Smt. Vichar involved in Case Crime No. 166 of 2018, under section 302, 328 IPC, P.S. Charkhari, District Mahoba be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. She shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall cooperate with the trial.

3. She shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

Order Date :- 15.5.2019

Masarrat