Sunita Mishra @ Suneeta Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17136

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 267 of 2025 Applicant :- Sunita Mishra @ Suneeta Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shobh Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ratnesh Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Ratnesh Tripathi, learned Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of informant/ opposite party No.2 is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Shobh Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ratnesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0291/ 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Ahirauli, District- Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 24.09.2024 against five persons, including the applicant, her husband, two daughters and her son- Deepak Kumar Mishra, stating that the informant had got his daughter married to the applicant's son- coaccused Deepak Kumar Mishra on 28.11.2021. The informant's daughter was working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School; that all the accused persons used to harass her since her marriage, due to which she died in the house of the accused persons in the night of 23.09.2024 in suspicious circumstances. The informant stated that the applicant's son had taken away her daughter from her own home on 21.09.2024.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is a 55 years old innocent woman having no criminal history and she has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶10

The post mortem examination report mentions no mark of injury or sign of use of force. Presence of Aluminium Phosphide has been reported in the viscera examination report.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant's husband co-accused Dileep Kumar Mishra has been granted bail by means of an order dated 20.02.2025 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1502 of 2025.

¶12

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶13

Learned counsel for the informant has produced before the Court the print out indicating that the applicant's son had posted a message on his whats app status stating that "he is thinking that he would gift a new daughter-in-law to his mother tomorrow on the occasion of Mother's day, which falls on 11th of May".

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the incident took place on 23.09.2024, which was not in close proximity with the posting of the whats app status; that the FIR does not level any allegation of harassment for demanding dowry; the post mortem examination report does not contain any finding suggesting forcible administration of poison and the applicant is a woman having no criminal history and her husband has already been

¶15

granted bail, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶16

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶17

In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Sunita Mishra @ Suneeta Mishra before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

¶18

(i) that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶19

(ii) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶20

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

¶21

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶22

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶23

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 24.3.2025/ Gurpreet Singh

¶25

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sunita Mishra @ Suneeta Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Mishra @ Suneeta Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Manju Singh (Vikas Ki Maa as Per Fir) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Indu Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Avanish Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Ramesh Kumar @ Dr. Ramesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Sectt. Deptt. Lko and Another

Babu Lal Patharkatta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others