Allowed

Manju Devi W/O Budhi Sagar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Allahabad HC22 Dec 2022/5476/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to applicant Manju Devi under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case concerning dowry-related death involving torture and strangulation. Bail granted subject to strict conditions regarding presence in court and potential penalties for non-appearance or misuse of bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Manju Devi released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties; strict conditions imposed regarding court attendance and trial proceedings.

Manju Devi W/O Budhi Sagar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5476 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manju Devi W/O Budhi Sagar Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Mishra,Kaushal Kishore,Vimal Shukla

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.171 of 2021, under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Harraiya, District Balrampur.

¶8

Accused-applicant's son, Mahesh Kumar got married with the deceased Laksmi in June, 2021. It is alleged that the accusedapplicant and her son used to torture and subject the deceased to cruelty for additional dowry of one motorcycle. When the dowry demand was not fulfilled, on 13.12.2021 the accusedapplicant and her son killed the deceased.

¶9

Post-mortem report would suggest the following antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased:-

¶10

"1. Ligature mark 30 cm x 1.0 cm all around neck. No gap ligature mark 4 cm below left ear, 3 cm below chin, 4 cm below ® ear.

¶11

2. Abrasion size 2 cm x 1 cm over the anterior aspect, 4 leg 16 cm, below from (M) knee.

¶12

3. Contusion 1 cm x 1 cm over (lt.) let 12 cm below from (Rt) leg.”

¶13

Cause of death was due to ante-mortem strangulation.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant along with her husband were living separately from the deceased and her husband. He has placed reliance on a certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan to this

¶15

effect. He further submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the case being mother-in-law of the deceased, but she was not demanded any motorcycle as she would not ride the motorcycle. He also submits that anything which might have happened between her son and the deceased and for that the accused-applicant is not responsible. Accusedapplicant has been in jail since 18.12.2021.

¶16

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but not disputed the aforesaid facts.

¶17

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the accused-applicant was having separate living from the deceased and her husband, it would be appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.

¶18

Let applicant Manju Devi be released on bail in the above case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

¶20

(ii) 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.

¶21

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial 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

¶22

shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(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 her in accordance with law.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.12.2022 Rao/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manju Devi W/O Budhi Sagar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Devi W/O Budhi Sagar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

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

Rakesh Kumar Rawat S/O Kandhayi Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Ilyaas Vs State of U.P.

Salman Vs State of U.P.

Anuj Alias Anoop ( Second Bail) S/O Mandreek Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Arjun @ Shan Singh Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Deepak Kumar S/O Sri Sharman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others