Allowed

Munni Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2023ABAIL/12053/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

"Court No. - 85" of the High Court at Allahabad granted anticipatory bail to Munni Devi, Lakshmi Devi, and Jyoti in a dowry harassment case under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, and 325 IPC, subject to surety bonds and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount.

Munni Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12053 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Munni Devi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gauri Shankar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Gauri Shankar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State perused the papers on record.

¶6

The present application has been moved by the applicants Munni Devi, Lakshmi Devi, Jyoti seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 348 of 2021, Under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 325 I.P.C. Police Station- Bishrakh, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶7

As per prosecution case, the first informant Dipika was being continuously harassed by her husband and other members of her family in order to coerce her for bringing more dowry; they habitually indulged in abusive language and physically assaulted her; she was harassed to such an extent that she was about to commit suicide and while attempting the same she cut her wrist vein. The matter was investigated upon and the charge sheet has been submitted.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant; that the applicant no. 1 being mother-in-law applicant no. 2 being real sister of the husband of the so called victim and Jyoti being wife of her Devar have been implicated in this false case out of vengeance; the real dispute lies between the first informant and her husband; it is contended that there are no direct allegations against them as far as offence under section 323, 504, 506 and 325 is concerned; the material allegations have been imputed against the husband and his younger brother. It is also contended that a divorce suit filed on behalf of the first informant against her husband is pending since 08.07.2020 i.e. before filing of the present F.I.R.; the instant case has been filed on 21.05.2021 in a mala fide manner in retaliation.

¶9

The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by the learned A.G.A. for the State. Undisputedly the major part of allegations are against the husband and his younger brother and there are only general allegations against the present applicants.

¶10

In case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, I considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case. In my view a case for anticipatory

¶12

bail is made out.

¶13

Let the applicants, Munni Devi, Lakshmi Devi and Jyoti involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount before the court concerned subject to the conditions as below:-

¶14

(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(ii) that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶16

(iii) that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶17

(iv) that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

(v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

(vi) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.

¶21

10. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.

¶22

Order Date :- 19.1.2023/Gaurav

¶23

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munni Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munni Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Ehasan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Krishn Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Goldi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sant Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Chandrakesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another