Allowed

Munni v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2024/10921/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court bench allowed a bail application for an accused woman charged under dowry-related offences. The court granted bail considering her gender, lack of attributed role, suicide nature of death, and separation from the deceased, subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Munni to be released on bail with a personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties each of Rs.50,000 upon furnishing specific undertakings regarding trial attendance.

Munni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70083

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10921 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Munni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Singh,Ashish Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Vyas, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondents.

¶7

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 10.06.2024 in F.IR/ Case Crime No. 0241 of 2024, under Sections 498-A/304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Beniganj, District- Hardoi.

¶8

3. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short "FIR") which has been lodged after the delay of two days and when the information of death was provided, which has been indicated in the inquest report, reasons of death has been shown as suicide, however, while lodging the FIR after two days, the allegation has been changed.

¶9

4. Further submission is that the applicant is living living separately from the her daughter in law (now deceased) and as per the postmortem report, the cause of death of the deceased is hanging and no bodily injury except one ligature mark was found which might have been caused on account of hanging.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant. The present applicant was having cordial relation with her daughterin-law (since deceased) and she has never demanded any dowry from her or her family members. So as to implicate the entire family, the present applicant who is mother-in-law, has been implicated in this case. The present applicant is having no previous criminal history. She undertakes that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order. Besides, being a lady she may be

¶11

given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C.

¶12

6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has, however, opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

7. Without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the contents and allegations of the F.I.R. and other material available on record, the fact that no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant, the applicant is living separately from her daughter in law (now deceased), the cause of death of the deceased is hanging and no bodily injury except one ligature mark was found which might have been caused on account of hanging, the undertaking of the present applicant that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, the fact that she being a lady she may be given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C., I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail.

¶14

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

9. Let the present applicant namely Munni be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶20

10. It is made clear that since the present applicant has been granted bail considering the fact that she is a lady and no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant and she being a lady is given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C., therefore, the parity of this order may not be claimed by the other co-accused persons.

¶21

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 17.10.2024 (Manoj K.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Munni v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munni v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravi Shukla @ Guddan Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Vikas Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Shiva Katiyar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Munni vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Sarojini Agrahari @ Sarojana Agrahari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vinod Kumar Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another