Meera Devi Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:230471

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46544 of 2023

Applicant :- Meera Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Navin Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Meera Devi, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 84 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 304-B IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Nayagaon, District- Etah, during pendency of trial.

¶9

There is allegation against the applicant of causing dowry death of her daughter-in-law.

¶10

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that son of the applicant was married to one, Rajkumari, in the year 2011, thereafter, divorce took place between them by mutual consent under Section 13B Hindu Marriage Act. Certified copy of order of mutual divorce of the son of the applicant with his first wife on 29.8.2022 has been placed by learned counsel for the applicant before the Court, which is taken on record. He has submitted that the deceased was not happy with her marriage with the son of the the applicant, hence she committed suicide by way of hanging. There was misadjustment between couple since son of the applicant was earlier married to another woman. It is not a case of demand of dowry. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. She has no criminal history to her credit and is languishing in jail since 8.8.2023. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, she does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails

¶13

over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 that :-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶15

(ii) 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.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) In case the applicant misuse 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.

¶18

(v) 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.

¶19

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

Order Date :- 5.12.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Meera Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera Devi v. State of U.P.

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

Deep Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Faizan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sultan Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mukesh Vs State of U.P.

Muneesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhure Vs State of U.P.