Allowed

Manisha v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2022/9174/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed bail to Manisha, sister-in-law of deceased, in suicide case under Section 498-A/306 IPC. Court considered FIR delay, suicide manner, and precedent granting bail to co-accused mother-in-law.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on bail on executing personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions including cooperation in trial and non-commission of crimes.

Manisha Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9174 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manisha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Vivek Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

¶6

The applicant, Manisha , has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 0121 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 306 I.P.C., Police Station Khandasa, District Ayodhya.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is the sister-in-law ( Nanand) of the deceased and is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and the applicant has not committed the alleged offence. Further submitted that specific role has not been assigned to the applicant in the commission of alleged offence. It is also stated that marriage of brother of the applicant and deceased was solemnized in the year 2014 and as per admitted fact "Gauna" was held in the year 2017 and the incident occurred on 23.05.2022 which shows that incident took place after eight years of marriage and after five years of "Gauna". He further submitted that entire story of prosecution is false as in relation to the period prior to death it has not been indicated in the entire prosecution story, that for settling the dispute related to demand of dowry and committing the cruelty the social meeting was organized or an application was moved before any of the authority against the applicant and her family members.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that on the application dated 23.05.2022 moved by the informant (brother of the deceased), the inquest process was carried out and postmortem was also carried out and at that time allegations of demand of dowry or committing cruelty were not levelled against any of the accused. It is further submitted that as per the opinion of witnesses of inquest persons, the deceased committed suicide. He further submitted that no demand of dowry was ever made and the deceased was never subjected to any cruelty due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry. The allegation regarding demand of dowry is false and fabricated.

¶9

The applicant is not the beneficiary of the said demand of dowry.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that occurrence is of 23.05.2022 and FIR was lodged on 30.05.2022, as such there is delay in lodging the FIR and there is no plausible explanation with regard to delay in lodging the FIR. This delay is fatal.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that deceased committed suicide and as per postmortem report except oblique ligature mark, no injury was found on the body of the deceased. The concerned Doctor opined that cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antimortem hanging, which shows that deceased committed suicide. It is next submitted that with oblique motive the brother of the deceased lodged the present FIR.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that on similar footing and on similar allegations the mother-in-law of the deceased, who is the mother of applicant, namely Gyanmati, has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.08.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9010 of 2022, therefore, the case of the applicant, who is sister-in-law of the deceased, is not on the worse footing than that of the co-accused, who has already been granted bail by this Court, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of party by this Court sympathetically.

¶13

Several other submissions regarding legality and illegality of the allegations made in the F.I.R. have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused, have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that she is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make herself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon her. The applicant undertakes that in case she is released on bail she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history, which fact has been stated in para-30 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 02.06.2022 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the courts, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but has not

¶15

disputed that similarly circumstanced co-accused, Gyanmati has already been granted bail.

¶16

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that the applicant is the sisterin-law (Nanand) of the deceased and she is not beneficiary of demand of dowry as alleged by the prosecution; general allegation has been made against all the accused persons including the applicant; except one ligature mark no other injury found on the person of the victim; cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging; similarly circumstanced co-accused, Gyanmati, who is mother-in-law of the deceased and mother of applicant has already been granted bail; as well as considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

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

¶18

Let the applicant, Manisha , involved in Case Crime No. 0121 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 306 I.P.C., Police Station Khandasa, District Ayodhya, be enlarged on bail on her executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶19

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶20

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and her personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶21

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶22

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶23

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is

¶24

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

¶25

(6) 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.

¶26

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶27

(8) 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.

¶28

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶29

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

¶30

Order Date :- 18.8.2022 Mustaqeem

¶31

Digitally signed by MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN Date: 2022.08.23 14:37:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manisha v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

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

Shiva Alias Shiv Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Dharmendra Saroj and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. A.C.S / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Arif S/O Sharif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Puspha Devi W/O Sri Jai Karan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homr Lko

Smt. Phool Mati W/O Late Sri Ram Sawaroop and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Lallu S/O Karamat (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others