Allowed

Munna @ Muniilal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2025BAIL/1981/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application for an applicant in jail since 14.2.2025 under Sections 80(2), 85 BNS and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act after his daughter-in-law's death by hanging. Court granted bail citing generalised FIR allegations, no specific role attributed, and no dowry demand, imposing standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to imposed conditions.

Munna @ Muniilal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13471

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1981 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Munna @ Muniilal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Rajat Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Alok Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 14.2.2025 in Case Crime no. 0003 of 2025 u/s 80(2), 85 BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mallawan, District Hardoi. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

¶8

Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the general allegations have been levelled against all family members including the present applicant. The present applicant is father-in-law of the victim (since deceased). No specific role has been attributed to him. The relation of the present applicant with his daughter-in-law (since deceased) was cordial and he has never demanded any dowry from her or her family members. The F.I.R. has been lodged having ulterior motive and extraneous design in the mind of the complainant. The cause of death is hanging. There is no ante-mortem injury except one ligature mark around the neck area which might be cause due to hanging.

¶9

The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant, only general allegations have been levelled against the applicant, he has never demanded any dowry from the victim (since deceased) or her family members, the cause of death is hanging, there is no ante-mortem injury except one ligature mark around the neck area which might be caused due to hanging and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶12

Bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant, Munna @ Muniilal , involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his 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:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he / 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.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him / her under Section 269 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶16

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him / her in accordance with law, under Section 208 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶17

(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 351 of B.N.S.S., 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 him / her in accordance with law.

¶18

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Om

¶20

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Munna @ Muniilal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna @ Muniilal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

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

Ankit @ Chhotu @ Amit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Rajneesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Srikant Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Dharmdev Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

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