Allowed

Meera Devi Alias Mamta Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 May 2019BAIL/16319/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16319 of 2018, the High Court enlarged Meera Devi on bail in a dowry death case pending trial. The court granted bail after considering counsel submissions and relied on the criminal antecedents of the applicant, ordering her to furnish a bond and sureties with stringent conditions regarding court attendance and abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions regarding court attendance and prohibition of adjournment abuse.

Meera Devi Alias Mamta Devi Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16319 of 2018 Applicant :- Meera Devi Alias Mamta Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Dev Rai,Jeet Bahadur Gautam,Sushil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saral Singh,Satyendra Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶3

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in Court today is taken on record.

¶4

Heard Sri R.P. Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sushil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

¶5

Perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant -Meera Devi @ Mamta Devi with a prayer to enlarge her on bail in Case Crime No. 746 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Bakewar, District-Etawah, during the pendency of the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated for committing dowry death with general allegations being father-in-law of the deceased; that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant regarding demand of dowry or treating the deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that applicant neither made any demand of dowry nor treated deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that as per averments made in FIR lodged by Awadhesh Kumar on 28.12.2017, his daughter Richa was married to Pradeep Kumar on 2.6.2017 and since after marriage was being treated with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of motorcycle, gold chain and cooler and was hanged to death on 27.12.2017; that postmortem report of deceased states that death of Richa did take place due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and there is no other ante mortem injury on her body except ligature mark; that husband may be responsible for unnatural death of deceased following differences between husband and wife; that the applicant was living separately; that case of the applicant is distinguishable with husband of the deceased.

¶8

The learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that the co-accused namely, Meharban Singh, who is mother-in-law of the deceased has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 13th March, 2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13085 of 2018. The case of the applicant, who is mother-in-law of the deceased, is similar and identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused. As such the present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶9

The learned counsel for the applicant has next contended that applicant has no criminal antecedents to her credit except the

¶10

present one. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 2nd January, 2018.

¶11

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, she does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶14

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 6.5.2019

¶19

Sushil/-

Meera Devi Alias Mamta Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera Devi Alias Mamta Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suaib Alias Suhaib Alias Devo Alias Bravo Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Satendra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Parveen Begam Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Akbar Vs State of U.P.