Rajjo Alias Manjoo vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37209

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5436 of 2025

Applicant :- Rajjo Alias Manjoo Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Umakant Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A-I 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 applicant-Rajjo @ Manjoo, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.277 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. 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 as asphyxia as a result of hanging. While placing para no.36 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, it is argued that co-accused Ajai Kumar @ Raja, the husband of the deceased is in jail. While placing para no.37 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, it is argued that charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter on 6.6.2024. It is argued that since the investigation has concluded, as such there are no chances of the applicant tempering with the evidence. It is argued that although FIR was lodged against six persons but co-accused Ravi, the Jeth of the deceased, Rani @ Ragini and Shivani, both the Nanad of the deceased have been exonerated in the present matter and charge sheet has been submitted only against the applicant, Kailash, the Sasur of the deceased and Ajay Kumar @ Raja the husband of the deceased.

¶10

The applicant is lady and is entitled to get benefit under Section 480 B.N.S.S. It is also pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 23 of the affidavit and is in jail since 5.6.2024.

¶11

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

¶12

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. General and omnibus allegations have been made in the FIR against the applicant and her family members. The husband of the deceased is in jail. The charge sheet has been submitted in the matter.

¶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-Rajjo @ Manjoo, 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 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.

¶18

(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 his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the

¶19

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 I.P.C.

¶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 313 Cr.P.C. 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 him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶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

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Gaurav Kuls

¶26

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

Rajjo Alias Manjoo v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajjo Alias Manjoo v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vishwajeet vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Monu vs State of U.P.

Mukesh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar vs State of U.P.

Rani Devi vs State of U.P.

Bhagat Sahani @ Bhabhuti Sahani vs State of U.P.