Allowed

Munni Devi v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2024BAIL/1946/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed by an aged accused in a dowry death case involving Section 498(A) and 304(B) IPC. The court granted bail considering her age and lack of criminal antecedent despite sweeping allegations.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for the accused to be released on personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions including non-tampering with evidence and presence in court.

Munni Devi vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20936

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1946 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Munni Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Pratap,Shashank Shekhar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

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

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.296 of 2023, under Sections 498(A), 304(B) I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Pachdevra, District Hardoi.

¶10

In the F.I.R. it is alleged that daughter of the informant was married on 03.12.2022 with Ramesh according to hindu rites and rituals. According to his capacity, informant gave dowry. Thereafter, the deceased went to her matrimonial home and after that she came twice or thrice. She complained to the informant that her in-laws are exerting pressure for motor-cycle and golden chain as the same has not been given by the informant in her marriage. She was asked to get those two things from the informant else she will be done to death and her husband will be married again due to this reason she has been done to death.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent. Applicant is mother-in-law aged about 63 years. General and sweeping allegations have been made in the statement of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. Applicant has no criminal history. She is in jail since

¶12

14.02.2023.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has submitted that deceased has suffered ante mortem injuries in the form of contusion apart from the ligature mark; death is due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. Deceased died within one year of marriage however, could not deny the fact that there are sweeping allegations regarding demand of dowry without any proximate or specific time of cruelty being committed upon the deceased in close proximity to the death.

¶14

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that applicant is an old lady of 63 years and has no criminal antecedent; general and sweeping allegations made in the statement of complainant and other prosecution witnesses, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant Munni Devi be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶17

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

(iii) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the

¶20

evidence.

¶21

(iv) 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.

¶22

(v) 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.

¶23

(vi) 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.

¶24

Order Date :- 7.3.2024

¶25

Saurabh Yadav/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Munni Devi v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munni Devi v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

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

Saurabh Alias Sajan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Alok Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. of Home, Lko

Susheel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

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

Nirmal Das @ Govind Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lko and Ors.