Allowed

Smt. Kanijan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2025BAIL/1156/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed in a case under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Court held that distant relatives should not be roped in based on omnibus allegations without specific instances.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence and to remain present before the Trial Court.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11561

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1156 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Kanijan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Waseem Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Verma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohammad Waseem, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 208 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Nawabganj, District- Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the marriage of son of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Muslim Rites about three years before her death. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry and also used to torture her by saying her to be unable to bear a child, as such, committed her murder by administering some poisonous material on 1.6.2024.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased person and has nothing to do with the said offence. There are general allegations in the FIR. At the one hand it is being stated that dowry was demanded from the victim and on the other hand it is stated that she was subjected to torture by calling her unable to bear a child ( Banjh ), as such, the applicant is entitled for bail.

¶11

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against

¶12

her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.8.2024 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶14

The Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs The State of Bihar, reported in 2022 (6) SCC 599 has categorically stated that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.

¶15

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Smt. Kanijan , who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶19

(ii) 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 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Vikas

¶24

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Kanijan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kanijan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Omveer vs State of U.P.

Rahul Maurya vs State of U.P.

Sanjay vs State of U.P.

Gulel Alias Ajai vs State of U.P.

Manni Alias Mobin vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tanuj Dhaka vs State of U.P.