Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Smt. Sumrati Devi. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).

Smt. Sumrati Devi. vs State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 03, 2010
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/912288

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12795 of 2010
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 25.02.2004 made in R.E.A.No.954 of 1995 in REP.No.1/93 by the Hon'ble Additional Sub-Judge, Salem, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner herein seeking to implead themselves in the execution proceedings...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 326, 498A, 120B; Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 3, 4

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Smt. Sumrati Devi.

Advocate S.K. Dubey, Adv.

Respondent

State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 326, 498A, 120B; Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 3, 4

Excerpt

prayer: civil revision petition filed under article 227 of constitution of india against the order dated 25.02.2004 made in r.e.a.no.954 of 1995 in rep.no.1/93 by the hon'ble additional sub-judge, salem, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner herein seeking to implead themselves in the execution proceedings in rep no.1/93 and thereby permit them to contest the claim of the first respondent.1. heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned a.g.a. and perused the record. 2. learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it was an accidental burn. the injured was got admitted by the husband in the hospital. the complaint was made after a month of the alleged incident. apart from that the applicant is mother-in-law and she was living separately. the husband and wife were living separately. a copy of the rashan card has been annexed as annexure-5 to this application. 3. however, the applicant is in jail since 23.4.2010. in view of the fact and being lady she is entitled for bail. 4. learned a.g.a. and complainant opposed the aforesaid prayer of bail on the ground that there was clear allegation against the applicant along with the co-accused that they poured petrol and set her on fire. on hearing her cry she was got admitted in the hospital by the persons who reached on the spot. on the complaint to the human right commission and higher authorities the first information report was lodged. since there is clear allegation against the applicantand co-accused, hence the applicant is not entitled for bail.from the medical report it is clear that she was admitted by the husband and it was mentioned that she received injuries while cooking food apart from that she is lady and in jail since 23.4.10. 5. in view of the above, without expressing any opinion on merit, it is a fit case for bail. 6. let the applicant smt.sumrati devi be enlarged on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no.474/09 under sections 326, 498a, 120b i.p.c. and 3/4 d.p. act, ps. dankaur, district g.b. nagar.

Full Judgment

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

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it was an accidental burn. The injured was got admitted by the husband in the hospital. The complaint was made after a month of the alleged incident. Apart from that the applicant is mother-in-law and she was living separately. The husband and wife were living separately. A copy of the rashan card has been annexed as annexure-5 to this application.

3. However, the applicant is in jail since 23.4.2010. In view of the fact and being lady she is entitled for bail.

4. Learned A.G.A. and complainant opposed the aforesaid prayer of bail on the ground that there was clear allegation against the applicant along with the co-accused that they poured petrol and set her on fire. On hearing her cry she was got admitted in the hospital by the persons who reached on the spot. On the complaint to the Human Right Commission and Higher Authorities the First Information Report was lodged. Since there is clear allegation against the applicantand co-accused, hence the applicant is not entitled for bail.From the medical report it is clear that she was admitted by the husband and it was mentioned that she received injuries while cooking food apart from that she is lady and in jail since 23.4.10.

5. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on merit, it is a fit case for bail.

6. Let the applicant Smt.Sumrati Devi be enlarged on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in Case Crime No.474/09 under Sections 326, 498A, 120B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, PS. Dankaur, District G.B. Nagar.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial