Smt. Madhuri W/O Rajemdra vs The State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10223 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8065 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Madhuri W/O Rajemdra
 
Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Naresh Singh Chauhan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

This case is taken up in the revised call.

Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit today in Court. The same is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does want to file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A..

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant-Smt. Madhuri for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.221/2022, under Sections 498A, 304-B, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Unnao, District Unnao.

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. She has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per the first information report lodged by the mother of the deceased on 11.04.2022 against seven accused persons, namely Manoj (husband), Anuj, Anoop (dewars), Rajendra (father-in-law), Madhuri (mother-in-law)/applicant, Sarika Nanad) and Sunita (cousin mohter-in-law) with the allegation that the complainant had married her daughter Sudha with Manoj seven months ago and after marriage there was demand of dowry in the form of Bullet Motorcycle, while the complainant was ready to give Passion-Pro and it is further alleged that due to above said demand of dowry there was harassment and cruelty and ultimately distant relative had informed about the sad demise of her daughter.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. No such incident, as alleged by the prosecution took place. The deceased committed suicide by hanging herself in a room. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has no concerned regarding dispute or regarding committing suicide of the deceased. He further submits that the applicant never demanded any dowry nor at any juncture harassed the deceased for want of dowry. He further submits that the applicant is not the beneficiary of motor cycle, which was alleged to be demanded as additional dowry.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it is case of the applicant that the applicant was living separately from the deceased with her husband in a separate portion of the house and their food was also prepared separately.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the deceased was a short tempered lady and she was always pressurizing her husband to live separately on some other city and on denial she was living under pressure and committed suicide. He further submits that the applicant has not pressurized the deceased to commit suicide, she was falsely implicated in the present case, only because she is the mother-in-law of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself in a room. The cause of death is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging and there is no other injury found on the body of the deceased except one injury which is as under:

"Ligature mark size 27 cm x 2 cm present front of neck below chin above thyroid cartilage, 8cm back obliquely interrupted 3 cm behind left ear. Mark is present 6 cm below right ear, 4 cm below chin, 2cm below left ear. Base of groove and brown, hard and parchament like, margins abided. On cutting subcutaneous tissue underneath ligature mark is white hard and glistering."

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that since as per the Modi's Jurisprudence and as per the post-mortem report of the deceased, it is a case of hanging and not the strangulation or murder, and as general role has been assigned to all the accused persons.

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 and has submitted that these facts have also been taken cognizance by the Apex Court whereby the Court stated that there are large number of false and frivolous cases lodged against the entire family members and submitted that there are general allegations against all the accused persons, therefore giving benefit of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) the applicant is liable to be released on bail.

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that she is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make herself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon her. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history, which has been explained in para 20 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and the applicant is in jail since 12.04.2022 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration, therefore, the bail application of the applicant may also be considered by this Court sympathetically and she should also be released on bail.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that as the daughter of the informant has died, therefore, bail application may be rejected.

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that the case of the applicant is that the applicant was living separately from the deceased with her husband in a separate portion of the house and as per averment made by the learned counsel for the applicant no such demand was ever made by the applicant prior or after the marriage and the applicant is not the beneficiary of motor cycle, which was alleged to be demanded as additional dowry; as per the Modi's Jurisprudence and as per the post-mortem report of the deceased, it is a case of hanging and not the strangulation or murder and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and Geeta Mehrotra (supra) this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Smt. Madhuri involved in Case Crime No.221/2022, under Sections 498A, 304-B, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Unnao, District Unnao be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and her personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

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

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure her presence, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

(6) The applicant shall remain present, 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 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.

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(8) 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.

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

Order Date :- 16.8.2022

Arvind