Smt. Meena Devi Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 72

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11521 of 2022

Applicant :- Smt. Meena Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yadavendra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Kumar Verma,Siya Ram Verma

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Yadavendra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Smt. Meena Devi under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 589 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Rasoolabad District Kanpur Dehat during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat vide order dated 15.02.2022.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 19.10.2021 at about 21;41 hours has been lodged by the father of the deceased against the applicant and five other family members of the applicant including the husband of the deceased stating therein that the marriage of his daughter, Arti Devi aged about 20 years was solemnized with the co-accused Saurabh on 27.04.2021. Just after marriage, applicant and his family members were dissatisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and started demanding one motorcycle and on 18.10.2021, there arose compromise and on 19.10.2021, applicant and his family members murdered his daughter and her body was found hanging position. .

¶8

After lodging the first information report, inquest proceeding of the body of deceased was conducted on 19.10.2021 at 23;10 hours, post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 20.10.2021 at 2:50 P.M., as per inquest report as well as post mortem report, except ligature mark, no other external injury was found on the persons of the deceased. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, charge sheet has been filed on 6.11.2021 against the applicant (mother-in-law), father-inlaw and other co-accused Saurabh (husband of the deceased). However, Investigating Officer exonerated three other named persons.The applicant was arrested on 23.10.2021.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that marriage of daughter of the first informant was solemnized with the coaccused Saurabh six months prior to the alleged incident. It is further submitted that general allegation of demand of dowry and harassment has been levelled against the applicant. It is further submitted that no specific role or involvement has been attributed to the applicant. It is further submitted that except ligature mark no other external injury was found on the persons of the deceased. It is further submitted that co-accused Pappybaz @ Awadhesh Baz on the identical role, has already been granted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11934 of 2002 vide order dated 27.04.2022. It is further submitted that on the similar set of allegations, investigating officer exonerated three other named persons.

¶10

He has next argued that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. If the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is not convicted in cognizable offence by any court.

¶11

Per contra , learned AGA has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶13

(a) the applicant is mother -in-law of the deceased;

¶14

(b) marriage of the co-accused Saurabh was solemnized with the daughter of the first informant six months prior to the alleged incident;

¶15

(c) except ligature mark, no other external injury was found on the persons of the decease;

¶16

(e) general allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled against the applicant ;

¶17

(f) no specific role / involvement has been attributed to the applicant;

¶18

(g) on the basis of same set of allegation, three named accused persons were exonerated by the Investigating Officer.

¶19

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep

¶20

in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶21

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 , Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶22

Let applicant, Smt. Meena Devi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶23

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶25

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶26

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶27

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶28

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

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 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

¶30

default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

¶31

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶32

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶33

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶34

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.

¶35

Order Date :- 23.5.2022 aks

¶36

Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.05.27 17:24:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Meena Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meena Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anubhav Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Adil and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Ranjana Umar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dhamandi Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Singh Vs State of U.P.