# Smt. Saroj v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1356
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-05-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29670 of 2015
- **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-saroj-v-state-of-u-p-43318
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Cr.P.C-Section 439-Bail-offence u/s 498A, 306 IPC-applicant being mother in law
of deceased-no allegation of ill treatment
or dowry demand-the deceased in her
statement-never complained any sort of
ill
treatment against her-burn injury
explained to be accidental-considering
detention period already undergone-no
possibility of early hearing-application
allowed with condition to cooperate in
Trail with personal appearance on every
dates-without any attempt to alter the
prosecution witness.
Held: Para-6
After perusing the record in the light of the
submissions made at the bar and after
taking an overall view of all the facts and
circumstances of this case, the nature of
evidence, the period of detention already
undergone,
the
unlikelihood
of
early
conclusion of trial and also the absence of
any convincing material to indicate the
possibility of tampering with the evidence,
this Court is of the view that the applicant
may be enlarged on bail.

## Text

1356
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the basis of the resolution dated 22.8.2012
which is held to be arbitrary having no
legal sanctity attached to it.
30.
Accordingly, the impugned order
dated 13.5.2015 (Annexure 12-A) is quashed
and the respondent No.2 is directed to
reconsider the matter of grant of affiliation to
the second shifts in the above two diploma
courses to the petitioner-institute for the
additional 60 seats each from the session
2015-16 onwards as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of six
weeks from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order before it.
31. The writ petition is allowed as
above.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.08.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29670 of
2015
Smt. Saroj
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P.
...Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri M.L. Rai
Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A., Sri Surendra Tiwari
Cr.P.C-Section 439-Bail-offence u/s 498A, 306 IPC-applicant being mother in law
of deceased-no allegation of ill treatment
or dowry demand-the deceased in her
statement-never complained any sort of
ill
treatment against her-burn injury
explained to be accidental-considering
detention period already undergone-no
possibility of early hearing-application
allowed with condition to cooperate in
Trail with personal appearance on every
dates-without any attempt to alter the
prosecution witness.
Held: Para-6
After perusing the record in the light of the
submissions made at the bar and after
taking an overall view of all the facts and
circumstances of this case, the nature of
evidence, the period of detention already
undergone,
the
unlikelihood
of
early
conclusion of trial and also the absence of
any convincing material to indicate the
possibility of tampering with the evidence,
this Court is of the view that the applicant
may be enlarged on bail.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand
Bajpayee, J.)
1. Sri Surendra Tiwari Advocate has
filed Parcha on behalf of the complainant
which is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Surendra Tiwari counsel for
the complainant and learned A.G.A.
3. Perused the record.
4. Submission of the counsel is that
the applicant is the mother in law of the
deceased and she never indulged in any
kind of ill treatment and demand of
dowry. What has been emphasized by the
counsel is that there is a statement of the
deceased also which was recorded in her
injured condition and has been also
recorded in the mobile video by the
Investigating Officer. The attention was
drawn to the statement of deceased Smt.
Anshika Garg alias Manju which has been
annexed as Annexure-2 to the application.
It was stated therein by the deceased that
accidentally the kerosene bottle which
was placed in the kitchen fell down and
3 All]
 Smt. Saroj Vs. State of U.P.
1357
kerosene got sprinkled on her clothes and
also on the Gas which was burning. It was
because of this reason that she caught fire.
It was further stated by her that her sister
in law rushed on hearing the shrieks and
tried to extinguish the fire and also called
her mother i.e. the present applicant. It
has also been submitted that thereafter she
was taken to Yashoda hospital and then to
Safdarganj hospital,New Delhi. It was
further categorically stated by the girl that
she got burnt only as a result of an
unfortunate accident that took place. On a
specific question of I.O. she also denied
the allegation that she was ever harassed
by the in laws. To the contrary the
deceased had stated that every body liked
her. In fact the Investigating Officer tried
to drill her and put specific questions in
order to rule out the possibility that she
might have been attempting to save the
applicant and the accused persons for the
sake of and in order to secure the future of
her children. But the deceased took the
same stand and did not raise any
incriminating accusations against her in
laws. Counsel has further drawn the
attention of the court to the summary of
the history of the patient in which also the
burns have been recorded as accidental
burns by kerosene oil and it was also
mentioned therein that allegedly the
deceased was cooking on gas and she
accidentally caught fire which resulted
into her burns. Further submission of the
counsel is that even if the details of the
merit of the case are not gone into at least
on a prima facie basis there is sufficient
material to make out a case for bail in
favour of the applicant as she is also a
woman being the mother in law of the
deceased. Several other submissions in
order to demonstrate the falsity of the
allegations made against the applicant
have also been placed forth before the
Court.
The
circumstances
which,
according to the counsel, led to the false
implication of the accused have also been
touched upon at length. It has been
assured on behalf of the applicant that he
is ready to cooperate with the process of
law and shall faithfully make himself
available before the court whenever
required. It has also been submitted that
the applicant is languishing in jail since
14.7.2015 and in the wake of heavy
pendency of cases in the Court, there is no
likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned
counsel for the complainant opposed the
prayer for bail and have submitted that no
dying declaration has been recorded by the
Magistrate and on spot examination there are
some such features found which indicate that
it is not the case of the accidental but burnt
by the accused persons and the children of
the deceased have also stated that before the
incident the treatment of the applicant
towards the deceased was not good and she
used to ill treat.
6.
After perusing the record in the
light of the submissions made at the bar
and after taking an overall view of all the
facts and circumstances of this case, the
nature of evidence, the period of detention
already undergone, the unlikelihood of
early conclusion of trial and also the
absence of any convincing material to
indicate the possibility of tampering with
the evidence, this Court is of the view that
the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
7.
Let the applicant-Smt. Saroj,
involved in Case Crime No.65 of 2015 u/s
498A 306 IPC P.S. Sihani Gate District
Ghaziabad be released on bail on her
executing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the
1358
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
satisfaction of the court concerned on the
following conditions :-
(1) The applicant will not make any
attempt to tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicant will personally
appear on each and every date in the court
and his personal presence shall not be
exempted unless the court itself deems it
fit to do so in the interest of justice.
8. It may be observed that in the event
of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the
court below shall be at liberty to proceed for
the cancellation of applicant's bail.
9.

It
is
clarified
that
the
observations, if any, made in this order
are strictly confined to the disposal of the
bail application and must not be construed
to have any reflection on the ultimate
merits of the case.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.09.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.
Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.
29890 of 2014
Anil Kumar
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P.
...Opp. Party
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Kuldeep Johri
Counsel for the Opp. Party:
A.G.A.
Cr.P.C.
Section
439-Bail
applicationoffence u/s 376 (2-G), 506, 411 IPCread with Section 3 (1) a SC/ST Actsecond bail-after rejection 4 years gonefrom
ordersheet-not
single
witness
produced by prosecution-accused ought
to be prosecuted and not persecutedconsidering overall circumstance without
considering merit of case-entitled for
bail-application allowed.
Held: Para-6
Looking to the overall nature of facts &
circumstances of the case, the long
period of detention and the fact that the
trial has not made any progress at all,
and in fact has not even begun, I feel
that accused has made out a case of bail.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand
Bajpayee, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned A.G.A.
2. Perused the record.
3. This is second bail application.
The Criminal Misc. First Bail Application
No. 11066 of 2012 has been rejected by
this court on 18.09.2013 by Hon'ble Mrs.
Jayashree Tiwari, J.
4.
Submission of counsel is that since
the rejection of the bail by another Bench on
18.09.2013, two years have elapsed but not
even a single witness has been examined in
court so far. It is pointed out by learned
counsel for the applicant that the applicant is
languishing behind the bars since 30.12.2011
and almost four years he has already spent in
jail. It is further pointed out that while
rejecting the bail application of the applicant
also, this court had observed that it was 'at that
stage' that the court did not find it to be a fit
case for bail. The submission is that ordinarily
apart from the merits of the case, the period of
detention of an accused also remains a
relevant consideration to release or for