Allowed

Anant Mohni @ Aanant Mohni v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 May 2022BAIL/2993/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to Anant Mohni, a nurse and accused in a dowry-related murder case, noting her employment record and coordinate order granting bail to the husband, while conditioning release on strict undertakings.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions regarding witness tampering and court attendance.

Anant Mohni @ Aanant Mohni Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2993 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Anant Mohni @ Aanant Mohni Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Chaturvedi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vishnu Kant Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri I. K. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Saurabh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vishnu Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for the first informant 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 applicant, Anant Mohni @ Aanant Mohni , under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No.256 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 302, 498-A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station-Kotwali Kalpi, District-Jalaun during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by learned Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai vide order dated 04.01.2022.

¶7

Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 21.09.2021, has been lodged against the applicant and three other named persons by the father of the deceasedSikha, stating therein that the marriage of his daughter, Sikha was solemonized with the co-accused Upendra Dwivedi about seven years prior to the incident. After the marriage, the applicant and other co-accused persons, used to threaten her and also harass her physically and mentally. They used to threaten her by stating the fact that sister-in-law (Jethani) of the daughter of the applicant was appointed as a nurse, and further if they killed her no one would be able to do anything and they would settle the matter by giving 2-4 lakhs rupees, as the sister-in-law (Jethani) of the daughter of the applicant was designated as a nurse. On 20.09.2021, at about 11:00 hours, they informed that health of his daughter was not good. He reached the matrimonial house of her daughter where he found his daughter

¶8

lying dead. Applicant and other three named co-accused persons murdered her by strangulating her neck.

¶9

After lodging of the first information report, the inquest report of the body of the deceased was conducted on 20.09.2021 at 18:00 hours at the C.H.C., Kalpi and as per the inquest report, except redness on neck, no other external injury was found. Post mortem report of the body of the deceased was also conducted on 21.09.2021 at 2:35 p.m. As per the post mortem report, abrasion mark mid line reddish brown in colour about 8 cm long and 1.5 cm width rounded interrupted towards left side neck and mid neck to left side neck abrasion, small size abrasion over right side neck was found. No other external injury was found on the person of the deceased. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, including the first informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C., charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other three named persons on 11.12.2021 and the I.O. exonerated co-accused named Kiran. Applicant was arrested on 03.12.2021.

¶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 sister-in-law (Jethani) of the deceased and she is working as a Nurse. It is further aruged that as per the first information report, the cause of death was asphyxia due to pressure over neck. Hyoid bone is not found fractured except redness over the neck. No other external injury was found on the person of the deceased. It is further submitted that the applicant is residing with her husband and daughter in campus of C.H.C., Kalpi District Jalon in the alloted room by Medical Officer at the time of the alleged incident. She has continuously discharged her duties from 18.09.2021 to 20.09.2021. It has also been certified by the Medical Superintendent C.H.C., Kalpi vide certificate dated 13.11.2021 . The attendance register of relevant time has been filed as a Annexure No.14 to the affidavit. It is further argued that general allegations of demand of dowry has been levelled against the applicant. It is further submitted that coaccused Naresh Dwivedi (husband of the applicant) having similar role granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10060 of 2022 (Naresh

¶11

Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 06.04.2022.

¶12

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra , learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, she 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) The first information report has been lodged under Sectiions 302, 498-A, 506 I.P.C.

¶16

(b) General allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled against the applicant.

¶17

¶18

(d) Cause of her death is Asphyxia due to pressure over neck and hyoid bone was not fractured.

¶19

(e) Naresh Dwivedi (husband of the applicant) having similar role granted bail by the coordinate Bench by this Court.

¶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, 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

¶22

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.

¶23

Let applicant, Anant Mohni @ Aanant Mohni, 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 him 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 that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶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 along-with 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 :- 30.5.2022 Shivangi

¶37

Digitally signed by SHIVANGI YADAV Date: 2022.06.02 14:40:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anant Mohni @ Aanant Mohni v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anant Mohni @ Aanant Mohni 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

Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Irfan @ Rashid Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tirath Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Keshav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.