Allowed

Meenesh Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 May 2025BAIL/10226/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail application filed by a female accused mother-in-law in a dowry-death case under Sections 80 and 85 BNS. Court relied on Section 480 BNSS and absence of convincing material to show tampering risk. Granted bail with conditions to prevent evidence tampering and ensure trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Accelerated bail granted on personal bond and two sureties with conditions to record at every stage of trial and avoid evidence tampering.

Meenesh Devi vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70565

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10226 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Meenesh Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Rohit Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S . has been filed by the applicant Meenesh Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 227 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S. Mahavan, District Mathura.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that initially an information on telephone was given by Samarjeet S/o of Bharat Singh (Chacha of the deceased/Smt.Pooja Kumari) that his niece committed suicide and died which was recorded in G.D. No. C15 at 09:42 hours dated 16.10.2024 at Police Station Mahavan, District Mathura. It is further submitted that on the said information inquest was conducted on the body of the deceased which started on 16.10.2024 at 09:42 hours and concluded at 10:45 hours. It is submitted that subsequent to it the present F.I.R. has been lodged on 16.10.2024 at 18:09 hours. It is further submitted that even in the F.I.R. there is no disclosure as to what was the actual demand of dowry but the allegations have been levelled that the accused persons including the applicant were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage. It is submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged against 6 persons including the applicant but Vikesh, Ankit and Hemlata have been exonerated during investigation and charge sheet has been submitted only against the applicant (mother-in-law), Bhanupratap (husband) and Jagdish (father-inlaw) of the deceased, para no. 21 of the affidavit has been placed for the same. It is further submitted that the deceased and her

¶10

husband were leading happy married life as would be evident from the fact that two children were born form the wedlock which is itself mentioned in the F.I.R. It is argued that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including the applicant. It is argued that the husband of the deceased has been arrested and is in jail. It is argued that the cause of death as opined by the doctor is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. It is argued that the applicant has been made accused in the present case because of she being a family member of the husband of the deceased. It is further argued that being a lady, she is entitled to the benefit of Section 480 BNSS. The applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para- 37 of the affidavit and is in jail since 18.10.2024.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments as raised.

¶12

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. The applicant is a lady and such she is entitled to the benefit of Section 480 BNSS. Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. The husband of the deceased is in jail.

¶13

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Meenesh Devi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this

¶18

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.

¶19

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if 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 209 BNS, 2023.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. 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 and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 BNS, 2023.

¶21

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶22

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶23

The bail application is allowed.

¶24

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶25

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶26

Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Naresh

¶27

Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Meenesh Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenesh Devi v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Ravindra vs State of U.P.

Jatashankar vs State of U.P.

Raman Singh vs State of U.P.

Satendra vs State of U.P.

Monu vs State of U.P.

Soran vs State of U.P.