Allowed

Manju Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2023/60/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed a bail application for Manju Devi, who was incarcerated with her infant grandson in a dowry harassment case. Considering her role as the mother-in-law of the deceased who committed suicide and the impracticality of separating the child from her, the court granted bail subject to specific conditions to ensure trial cooperation. The order explicitly

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding court availability, prohibition of adjournments, and travel restrictions.

Manju Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 60 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Manju Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 28.10.2022 in Case Crime No. 575 of 2022 u/s 498A, 304B IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Pihani, District Hardoi. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as she has not committed any offence as alleged.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is mother-in-law of the victim. Her relation with her daughter-in-law were cordial and she never demanded any dowry from her or her family members. The victim has committed suicide leaving her five months son. Since the entire family members including the present applicant are in jail, therefore, the present applicant is carrying the son of the deceased who is grand-son of the applicant with her in the jail. In the jail the infant child could not be taken care of properly. The recital of this effect has been given in para 15 of the application.

¶8

The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perusing the material available on record and the fact that the present applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased who committed suicide leaving her infant son of

¶11

five months who is with the present applicant in the jail and her undertaking that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate that the present applicant be released on bail in this case.

¶12

Let the applicant Manju Devi, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(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.

¶14

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

¶18

It is made clear that this bail has been granted to the present applicant considering the fact that she is a mother-in-law carrying infant son of five months of her

¶19

deceased daughter-in-law, therefore, the other coaccused may not claim parity of this order.

¶20

Before parting with it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures as per law if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial properly. The learned trial court shall fix short dates to ensure that trial is concluded at the earliest.

¶21

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 5.1.2023 Om

¶23

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manju Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

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

Rajendra Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Geeta Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Lko.

Saurabh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Others

Rani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Secrt. Lko.

Ketuka @ Ketuki Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.