Allahabad High Court
Smt. Manjoo Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33458 of 2018
Applicant :- Smt. Manjoo Jaiswal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Srivastava,Narendra Nath Tripathi,Siddhartha Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Smt. Manjoo Jaiswal with a prayer to enlarge her on bail in Case Crime No.174 of 2018, under Section 498-A, 304B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Barhaj, District Deoria.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the allegation made in the F.I.R., the informant had solemnized marriage of his daughter (deceased) on 23.11.2019 with Amit Jaiswal and had given dowry as per his capacity. The in-laws of the deceased used to torture her mentally and physically for non-fulfilment of additional dowry demand of Rs.1,00,000/- and a motorcycle and they used to lock her. The deceased informed about the harassment several times telephonically to the informant. On 04.07.2018 at about 4:00 PM, somebody informed through telephone that the informant's daughter has been done to death. When the informant alongwith his family members reached the matrimonial house of the deceased, they saw that the deceased had already expired and her dead body was lying on the cot. It is next contended that there are general bald and vague allegation against the applicant and her family members . It is next submitted that the applicant is the mother-in-law aged about 68 years and is languishing in jail since 05.07.2018. It is further contended that the applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the material/evidence brought on record, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicant shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it will be open to the opposite parties to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.
However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment.
Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
Radhika
