Allowed

Mangal Alias Om Prakash Keshari and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2025BAIL/4958/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parents-in-law sought regular bail in a case of alleged dowry death of their daughter-in-law. The court noted general and omnibus allegations, that they lived separately from the deceased and her husband was already jailed, and allowed bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on personal bond and two sureties each with conditions against tampering, harassment, and misuse of liberty.

Mangal Alias Om Prakash Keshari and Another vs State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37389

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4958 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Mangal Alias Om Prakash Keshari And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S has been filed by the applicants-Mangal @ Om Prakash Keshari and Sita Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.181 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80 (2) B.N.S., 2023 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Obra, District Sonbhadra.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant no.1 is the father-in-law of the deceased and applicant no.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased Smt. Poonam Kesari. It is argued that the deceased committed suicide and died which is suggestive from the postmortem report wherein the doctor found single ligature mark on her body and cause of death has been opined asphyxia as a result of hanging. It is argued that general and omnibus allegations have been levelelled against the applicants. Sujeet Keshari, the husband of the deceased is in jail. The applicants were living separately from the deceased and her husband, photocopy of the electricity bill of the applicant no.1 has been placed before the Court, para 14 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application and annexure no.6 has been placed before the Court. The applicant no.2 is lady and is entitled to get benefit under Section 480 B.N.S.S. It is also pointed out that the applicants have no criminal history as stated in para 21 of the affidavit and are in jail since 14.12.2024.

¶10

Per contra learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicants are father-in-law and mother-inlaw of the deceased. General and omnibus allegations have been made in the FIR against the applicants. The husband of the deceased is in jail. The applicants were living separately from the deceased and her husband.

¶12

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.

¶13

Let the applicants-Mangal @ Om Prakash Keshari and Sita 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

ii) The applicant (s) 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.

¶16

(iii) The applicant (s) shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/they shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶17

(iv) The applicant (s) will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant (s) misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023, may be issued and if applicant (s) fails/fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/them, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023.

¶18

(v) The applicant (s) 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 (s) is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for

¶19

the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/them in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him/them under Section 269 BNS, 2023.

¶20

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

¶21

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 (s) to prison.

¶22

The bail application is allowed .

¶23

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Gaurav Kuls

¶25

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mangal Alias Om Prakash Keshari and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal Alias Om Prakash Keshari and Another 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sandeep vs State of U.P.

Sayed Mohammad Saeed vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Yagya vs State of U.P.

Bhola Nath and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Dr Durgvijay Bharti vs State of U.P. and Another

Gajram Singh vs State of U.P.