Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Deepa Devi And Others ...... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand on 6 October, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
IA No.2129 of 2023 For Second Bail Application
In
Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 2015
Smt. Deepa Devi and Others ...... Appellants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal,
Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant appeal has been preferred against
judgment and order dated 26.11.2015, passed in Sessions Trial
No.16 of 2012, State Vs. Mahavir Kumar and Others, by the court
of Sessions Judge, Chamoli (Gopeshwar). By it, the appellants
have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 302 read with
Section 34 IPC and Section 498-A IPC.
2. Heard.
3. This is an admitted appeal.
4. List in due course for final hearing along with
connected cases.
5. Heard on Second Bail Application (IA) No.2129 of
2023.
6. The deceased Usha was sister-in-law of appellants
Pradeep Kumar and Manoj Kumar, and she was daughter-in-law
of the appellant Smt. Deepa Devi. She was married to co-convict
Mahavir on 05.05.2011. She died on 28.06.2012. A report was
lodged levelling allegations of dowry, harassment, etc. on
04.07.2012. The post-mortem report reveals that there were
marks on the neck of the deceased. The death was due to
asphyxia.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant Pradeep Kumar and Manoj Kumar submits that both of
them have undergone more than half of the sentence imposed on
them; they were on bail during trial; they never misused the bail
and there are less chances of appeal being heard in near future.
8. Insofar as appellant Smt. Deepa Devi is concerned,
it is argued that she was mother-in-law of the deceased; no motive
has been attributed to her; she is an old lady of 68 years of age;
she has been in custody for more than 9 years and 11 months
now; there is no specific role assigned to her; there are less
chances of appeal being heard in near future now.
9. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that, in fact,
the appellant, Smt. Deepa Devi, has been convicted under Section
302 read with 34 IPC as well as under Section 498-A IPC.
10. Learned State Counsel does not dispute these
factual narrations.
11. Having considered the period of incarceration and
other attending circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
view that it is a case in which the execution of sentence should be
suspended and the appellants be enlarged on bail.
12. The bail application is allowed.
13. The sentence appealed against is suspended
during the pendency of the appeal.
14. The appellants be released on bail during the
pendency of the appeal on their executing a personal bond and
furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each
one of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
06.10.2025
Ravi Bisht
