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

Court No. - 85

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13286 of 2022

Applicant :- Mohani And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mrityunjay Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailesh Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mrityunjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

02.The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants- Mohani and Radha with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No.138 of 2020, Session Trial No.600 of 2021, under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C., read with Section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Chandaus, District Aligarh.

¶7

As per prosecution case, Pooja daughter of Shivcharan was being tortured for bringing dowry by her-in-laws and she was killed by them. The first information report has been lodged by brother of the deceased against husband and almost all the members of the family. On the basis of this F.I.R. Case Crime No.138 of 2020 has been registered and investigated upon. During investigation cause of the death was found as Asphyxia due to antemortem hanging.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the applicants are unmarried young women and related to the victim as nanad. There is no direct allegation against them and they possibility could not have. The F.I.R. has been lodged against the husband, father-in-law, mother-inlaw,jeth,jethani,two dewars and the present applicants who are nanads. No external injury except injury caused by hanging was found on the body of the deceased. They are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this Case. It is also brought to my notice that present applicants were not chargesheeted and have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of plain statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in which the allegations were not direct and no specific role was assigned to them.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

It may be stated that 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, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicants Mohani and Radha in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions as below:-

¶13

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

¶14

(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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

09. 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 1.2.2023 Asha

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohani and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohani and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Mohan Jha and Another Vs State of U.P.

Surat Ram Patel and Another Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Urvashi Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mahatam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Javed Quresi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Sudami Vs State of U.P.