Applicant :- Kanti Devi @ Shanti Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Rastogi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

In terms of the F.I.R., it was alleged that the daughter of the informant was married to the son of the applicant around one year ago and sufÏcient dowry was also given. Subsequently, on 11.7.2023, the matrimonial family had killed the daughter of the informant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the post mortem report which indicates the cause of death as Asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation.

¶9

He further drawn my attention to the statement of the informant where as against the applicant, it was alleged that she used to force her son to ask for dowry. There is no specific allegation against the applicant being mother-inlaw to demonstrate that soon before the death, the deceased was subjected to any physical or mental torture in relation to demand of dowry at the instance of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 6.9.2023 having no criminal history, hence he may be released on bail.

¶10

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

¶11

Considering the post mortem report coupled with the fact that there is no specific allegation against the applicant to demonstrate that soon before the death, the deceased was subjected to any physical or mental torture in relation to demand of dowry at the instance of the applicant; the applicant being a lady is languishing in custody since 6.9.2023 having no criminal history and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am

¶12

of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Kanti Devi @ Shanti Devi be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.254 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mailani, District Kheri on her furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶15

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶16

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶17

(c) The applicant 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.4.2024

¶19

Shukla

¶20

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

Kanti Devi @ Shanti Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kanti Devi @ Shanti Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Binod Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Naveen Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sumit Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Premavati vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Barati Lal Alias Barati vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and and 3 Others