Allowed

Smt. Meenu Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Jun 2021BAIL/8287/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge granted bail to an applicant, the mother-in-law of the deceased, who was charged with dowry harassment and causing death under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. The court found a prima facie case for bail despite opposition by the State.

What did the court decide?

The application for bail was allowed; the applicant was released on personal bond and two local sureties subject to specific conditions of attendance in court.

Smt. Meenu Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8287 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Meenu Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Srivastava, Sunil Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 883 of 2020, under Sections 498 A, 304B IPC Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Tajganj, District - Agra with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶8

The First Information Report of this incident was lodged by the father of the deceased against her in-laws and it was alleged therein that he had given a sum of Rs. 9 Lakhs as dowry to the in-laws of his daughter. But they started harassing the daughter of the complainant for additional demand of dowry and on 10.12.2020 after getting information on phone that deceased Tanu is ill, the father of the deceased with his daughter Shipu went to the house of the deceased. They came to know that the deceased was taken to Nursing Home for treatment where she was declared dead. The matter was reported to the police.

¶9

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant-accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the present applicant happens to be the mother-inlaw of the deceased and the father-in-law of the deceased has already been granted bail. Only general allegations of dowry demand have been levelled against the present accused, nothing specific has come on record against the present applicant; the deceased died during the treatment in the hospital where she was got admitted by her in-laws and the present applicant has nothing to do with the additional demand of dowry as there is no specific allegation made against her. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is in jail since 16.12.2020 and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the parties, period of detention of the applicant and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out.

¶12

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶13

Let applicant Smt. Meenu Sharma involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶14

(1). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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;

¶15

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

¶16

(3). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure her 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 may initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(4). 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶18

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the learned counsel for the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶19

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶20

Order Date :- 21.6.2021 LBY

Smt. Meenu Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meenu Sharma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditya Alias Marshall Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Shakir Mirza Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Raj Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Prabal @ Bal Krishan Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Chandrashekhar @ Guddu Vs State of U.P.