Allowed

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

Allahabad HC26 May 2022BAIL/13968/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Smt. Meena Chauhan, an accused in a dowry death case. Relying on established precedents, the court held the matter fit for bail grant subject to undertaking to produce before the trial court. Observations are limited to bail determination only.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties in the like amount subject to standard conditions.

Smt. Meena Chauhan Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13968 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Meena Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajai Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Ajai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Vishwa Deepak Mishra, 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 Chauhan under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 994 of 2021for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by the Sessions Judge, Moradabad vide order dated 08.03.2022.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 10.11.2021 has been lodged by the father of the deceased against the applicant and four other family persons stating therein that his daughter, Pragati was married with the coaccused Devendra Chauhan @ Ankur Chauhan on 22nd May, 2017 as per Hindu rites and customs and he spent approximately Rs.10 lacs to perform her marriage which included gold, silver jewellery ornaments as well as other household articles but after marriage, applicant and other family members were not satisfied with the aforesaid dowry given in the marriage and they started to torture and harass her physically and mentally from time to time. Out of their wedlock, two daughters were blessed. After the birth of her second daughter, his daughter were being badly maltreated for not fulfilling the demands and many time, she was thrown out her house on 22.08. 2021, i.e. on the day of Rakshabandhan and elder brother of the first informant, Radheyshyam, brother of the first informant, nephew of the first informant, Mohan and his son, Rohit Singh were called at her home and they were asked to arrange additional demand of Rs. 5 lacks and till the aforesaid demand was not fulfilled, his daughter would not be permitted live at her matrimonial house. On this issue, family

¶8

members of the deceased persuaded and anyhow they agreed to keep her at her matrimonial house but they continued to harass and torture his daughter. On 09.11.2021 at about 8.00 am, his daughter came in contact his father on her phone and asked him to bring Rs. 5 lacs otherwise, her in-laws would kill her and on this, first informant assured his daughter that he would come tomorrow to her house and matter would be settled there. On the very same day, i.e. on 09.11.2021 at about 4.00 p.m., brother in-law (Jeth) of his daughter informed him by phone that his daughter was no more. Hearing this, first informant and his all members were deeply shocked. His daughter was murdered for demand of additional dowry on conspiracy being hatched by her husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law ( Jeth ) and sister-inlaw (Jethani).

¶9

After lodging the first information report, inquest of the deceased was conducted on 10.11.2021 at 11.10 a.m. Post mortem of the deceased was also conducted on 10.11.2021 at 3.45 p.m., as per post mortem report, except ligature mark, no other external injury was found on the person of the deceased. After recording the statement of firs informant and other prosecution witnesses, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant and four other named persons on 30.01.22022. The applicant was arrested on 17.01.2022.

¶10

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 the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. It is further submitted that marriage of her son was solemnized with the deceased on 22.05.2017. It is further submitted that general allegation of demand of Rs. 5 lacs and harassment has been attributed to the applicant. It is further submitted that no specific role or involvement has been attributed to the applicant. It is further submitted that as per post mortem report, except ligature mark no other external injury was found on the person of the deceased. It is further submitted that co-accused Aashu Chauhan @ Anshu and Ruchi, brother-in-law (Jeth) and Sisterin-law ( Jethani) on the identical role, have been already been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 12989 of 2022 and 5767 of 2022 on 18.05.2022.

¶11

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.

¶12

Per contra , learned AGA has supported the order passed by the

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

(a) F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and four other family members. ;

¶16

(b) general allegation of demand additional dowry of Rs. 5 lacs and harassment has been made against the applicant ;

¶17

¶18

(d) except ligature mark, no injury was found on the person of the deceased;

¶19

(e) co -accused Aashu Chauhan @ Anshu and Ruchi, brother-inlaw ( Jeth) and Sister-in-law ( Jethani) on the identical role, have been already been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 12989 of 2022 and 5767 of 2022 on 18.05.2022.

¶20

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep 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, her role and involvement in the offence, her 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.

¶22

Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let applicant, Smt. Meena Chauhan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her 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:

¶24

(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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

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

¶26

(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.

¶27

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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 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,

¶33

unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

Order Date :- 26.5.2022 aks

¶37

Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.05.27 17:24:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meena Chauhan 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

Suneel Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Sabuddin @ Shahbuddin and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sharad Mishra @ Monu Vs State of U.P.

Sipahi Lal Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Nagar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohammad Saleem Vs State of U.P.