Sushila Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This Application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for Anticipatory Bail under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with the First Information Report No.14 of 2022, registered at police station Doiwala, District Dehradun.

The First Anticipatory Bail Application was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.06.2023.

As per the First Information Report, the informant Bhagat Singh’s daughter Shivani was married to Mukesh Rawat on 27.04.2021. On 06.01.2022, he was informed by Balwant Singh, his brother-in-law (Bahanoi), that his daughter had eaten something and had gone towards the forest. His daughter (Shivani) was admitted to the Himalyan Hospital, Jolly Grant in an unconscious state. His daughter died during the treatment on 10.01.2022. His daughter died by consuming poison due to dowry harassment. The First Information was lodged against Mukesh Rawat, the husband of the deceased, and, Smt. Sushila Devi, the mother-in-law of the deceased.

Heard Mr. Ravi Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned Brief Holder for State.

Mr. Ravi Bisht, Advocate, contended that the applicant Smt. Sushila Devi, aged about 59 years, the mother-in-law of the deceased, has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The deceased died by consuming bromadiolone poison, but there is no mention in the First Information Report as to what was demanded in the alleged dowry. Nothing is on the record to suggest that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment “soon before her death” and “in connection with the demand of dowry”. The husband of the deceased has already been granted anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court. Applicant was not arrested during the course of the investigation. She was granted bail by the Investigating Officer on the ground of her illness, and, the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned Brief Holder for State, has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application orally. However, he has conceded that the applicant was granted bail by Investigating Officer during the investigation on the ground of her illness.

Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant- Sushila Devi is directed to be released on Anticipatory Bail, in the event of her arrest, on furnishing her personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount on the following conditions:-

(i) Applicant shall attend the Trial Court regularly and she shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

(iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Trial Court.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon her, the concerned authority will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

Anticipatory Bail Application (No.17 of 2024) stands disposed of accordingly.