Smt. Munni Devi vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 1066 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 72
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 137 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Munni Devi
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Shiromani Shukla,Anubhav Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

Heard Shri Anubhav Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Smt. Munni Devi under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 341 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B of the Indian Penal Code & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Fareedpur, District Bareilly, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Bareilly vide order dated 9.11.2021.

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 7.7.2021 has been lodged by father of the deceased against the applicant and five other family persons including the husband of the deceased stating that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with co-accused Udai Veer in the year 2015. After the marriage, applicant and other co-accused persons started to harass his daughter and made cruelty with her for the additional demand of dowry and cash. During marriage first informant has given Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash and one buffalo, but they demanded one motorcycle as additional dowry. Two sons were born out of the said wedlock, aged about five years and two years. On 5.7.2021 daughter of the first informant informed him that the applicant and other co-accused persons threatened to kill her. After receiving the information, he reached the matrimonial house of the deceased at 5.00 p.m. where he saw that his daughter had died. The applicant and other co-accused persons committed murder of his daughter. Some black spots have been found on the head and body parts of the deceased.

Before lodging of the first information report, inquest of the body was conducted on 6.7.2021 at 11.30 a.m. in the matrimonial house of the deceased. Postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 6.7.2021 at 5.20 p.m. As per postmortem report, except ligature mark, abrasion, multiple abraded contusions were found on right arm, right leg and abdomen. Cause of death was asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. Time of death was about one and half days. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused Udai Veer, husband of the deceased. The applicant was arrested on 26.8.2021.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. It is further submitted that the marriage of the daughter of the first informant was solemnized with co-accused Udai Veer in the year 2015. Two children were born out of the said wedlock. It is further submitted that as per postmortem report, cause of death was ante mortem hanging. It is further submitted that the applicant is living separately from her son and the deceased and she had never shared accommodation with the deceased. General allegation of demand of motorcycle has been levelled against the applicant and other co-accused persons. No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.8.2021.

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

(a) Applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased;

(b) Marriage of the daughter of the first informant was solemnized with co-accused Udai Veer in the year 2015;

(c) Applicant was 67 years at the time of incident;

(d) As per postmortem report, cause of death was ante mortem hanging;

(e) General allegation of demand of motorcycle has been levelled against the applicant and other co-accused persons;

(f) No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the applicant.

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

Let applicant, Smt. Munni Devi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) 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 313 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel.

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

Order Date :- 11.4.2022

T. Sinha