Munni Devi v. State of U.P.) has granted bail to co

Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant Ajai seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 246 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kiratpur, District Bijnor during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 2370 of 2023 (State Vs. Naresh and others) under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kiratpur, District Bijnor, now pending in the Court of Additional District Judge IInd, Bijnor. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 28.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41511 of 2023 (Ajay Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 28.11.2023 is reproduced herein below:- "1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Sawhney, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Ram Sajeevan Prajapati, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Lal Bahadur, the learned counsel representing first informant.

2. Perused the record.

3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Ajay seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 246 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kiratpur, District-Bijnor during the pendency of trial.

4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant contends that this Court vide order dated 25.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35041 of 2023 (Munni Devi Vs. State of U.P.) has granted bail to co-accused Munni Devi (mother-in-law of the deceased). On the above premise, he submits that in view of 2 BAIL No. 26929 of 2024 above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the aforementioned bail order, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since applicant is the husband of the deceased, he cannot claim parity with the mother- in-law of deceased. The co-accused Munni Devi being a lady was entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. Attention of Court was invited to the recital contained in paragraph 8 of the above order dated 25.08.2023. For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereinunder:- "Even otherwise, applicant is a woman of clean antecedents inasmuch as, she has no criminal history to her credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 10.06.2023. As such, she has undergone more than 2 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. Applicant cannot be said to be the beneficiary of the alleged demand of additional dowry. The husband of the deceased i.e. the son of the applicant is already languishing in jail. There is delay of 30 days in lodging the FIR. The delay in lodging the FIR has not been sufficiently explained. With reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Rajagopal And Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2019(5) SCC 403 (paragraph 8), the learned counsel for applicant contends that since the delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained, the prosecution of the applicant itself cannot be maintained. The body of the deceased was cremated in the presence of the family members of the deceased. This fact is clearly evident from the statement of the witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. namely - Gyan Singh, Nikhil, Updesh, Rampal Singh, Nakul, Sukhdev Singh and Others. On the above premise, he submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial."

6. According to the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant, the recital occurring in the aforesaid paragraph to the effect - "This fact is clearly evident from the statement of the witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. namely - Gyan Singh, Nikhil, Updesh, Rampal Singh, Nakul, Sukhdev Singh and Others." is factually incorrect.

7. Attention of the Court was then invited to the statement of these witnesses, which are on record page 30 onwards of the paper book. It is thus urged that all these witnesses mentioned in paragraph 8 of the order dated 25.08.2023 were present at the time of funeral of deceased. However, accoding to the statements of these witnesses, the family members of deceased including the father of deceased arrived after the funeral was over. It is then contended that even in a case of suicidal death, information is required to be given at the concerned Police Station in terms of Section 174 Cr.P.C. However, no such information was given by the applicant or any of his family members at the concerned Police Station and the dead body of deceased was disposed off. On account of above, neither the inquest nor the post mortem of the body of deceased could be conducted. As such, neither the nature of death nor the cause of death of deceased could be ascertained. The occurrence has occurred within 7 years of marriage i.e. just after expiry of 3 years and 2 months from the date of her marriage. Applicant is the husband of deceased and an inmate of the house. As such, the burden is upon the applicant 3 BAIL No. 26929 of 2024 to not only explain the manner of occurrence but also his innocence in terms of Sections 106 and 113-B of the Evidence Act. However, the applicant has miserably failed to discharge the said burden up to this stage. As such, no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant.

8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

9. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, complicity of accused, accusations made coupled with the fact that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant in opposition to the present application for bail could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant, therefore, irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the present application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any good or sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail

10. As a result, present application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

11. It is accordingly rejected." Learned counsel for applicant submits that charge sheet/police report in terms of Sections 173(2) Cr. P. C. was submitted by the Investigating Officer against applicant on 30.6.2023. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions as offence complained of against applicant is triable by Court of Sessions. The charges were framed against applicant vide framing of charge order dated 8.1.2024. In the charge sheet/police report against applicant, there are as many as 17 prosecution witnesses nominated therein. However, upto this stage, only two prosecution witnesses of fact namely P.W. 1 Patram Singh, father of the deceased and P.W. 2 Shamala, mother of the deceased have deposed before Court below. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that since charge sheet/police report has been submitted against applicant, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. Further, once the statement of first informant P.W. 1 stands recorded before Court below, therefore, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, then in that eventuality, it cannot be said that applicant shall terrorize the witness or shall hamper the course of trial. He, therefore, submits that in view of above, no good or justifiable ground now exists to prolong the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance is placed upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw SC 373 (Paragraph 5). It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant that first informant in his deposition before Court below has himself stated that he was present at the house of the applicant on 2.5.2023 and 3.5.2023, whereas the occurrence took place on 2.5.2023, yet in spite of above, no steps were taken by him to immediately lodge the F.I.R. or inform the police about the murder/death of his daughter. He, therefore, submits that in view of above, present criminal proceedings have been engineered as an after thought. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 4 BAIL No. 26929 of 2024

10.06.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 2 years and 3 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. Furthermore, two prosecution witnesses of fact have also deposed before Court below. As such, as per evidence on record, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged so as to warrant custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. It is thus urged that in view of above, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate in the conclusion of trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present application. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the present repeat application for bail. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for state, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made, this Court finds that the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of this repeat application for bail as noted herein above are clearly borne out from the record, therefore considering the above and irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to application for bail, prayer for bail is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Ajai involved in Case Crime No. 246 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kiratpur, District Bijnor , be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with 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 :- (i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/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. (ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. 5 BAIL No. 26929 of 2024 (iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. (iv) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. POSSIBLE (v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above. September 16, 2025 HSM (Rajeev Misra,J.) HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant Ajai seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 246 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kiratpur, District Bijnor during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 2370 of 2023 (State Vs. Naresh and others) under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kiratpur, District Bijnor, now pending in the Court of Additional District Judge IInd, Bijnor. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 28.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41511 of 2023 (Ajay Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 28.11.2023 is reproduced herein below:- "1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Sawhney, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Ram Sajeevan Prajapati, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Lal Bahadur, the learned counsel representing first informant.

2. Perused the record.

3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Ajay seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 246 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kiratpur, District-Bijnor during the pendency of trial.

4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant contends that this Court vide order dated 25.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35041 of 2023 (Munni Devi Vs. State of U.P.) has granted bail to co-accused Munni Devi (mother-in-law of the deceased). On the above premise, he submits that in view of 2 BAIL No. 26929 of 2024 above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the aforementioned bail order, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since applicant is the husband of the deceased, he cannot claim parity with the mother- in-law of deceased. The co-accused Munni Devi being a lady was entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. Attention of Court was invited to the recital contained in paragraph 8 of the above order dated 25.08.2023. For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereinunder:- "Even otherwise, applicant is a woman of clean antecedents inasmuch as, she has no criminal history to her credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 10.06.2023. As such, she has undergone more than 2 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. Applicant cannot be said to be the beneficiary of the alleged demand of additional dowry. The husband of the deceased i.e. the son of the applicant is already languishing in jail. There is delay of 30 days in lodging the FIR. The delay in lodging the FIR has not been sufficiently explained. With reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Rajagopal And Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2019(5) SCC 403 (paragraph 8), the learned counsel for applicant contends that since the delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained, the prosecution of the applicant itself cannot be maintained. The body of the deceased was cremated in the presence of the family members of the deceased. This fact is clearly evident from the statement of the witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. namely - Gyan Singh, Nikhil, Updesh, Rampal Singh, Nakul, Sukhdev Singh and Others. On the above premise, he submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial."

6. According to the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant, the recital occurring in the aforesaid paragraph to the effect - "This fact is clearly evident from the statement of the witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. namely - Gyan Singh, Nikhil, Updesh, Rampal Singh, Nakul, Sukhdev Singh and Others." is factually incorrect.

7. Attention of the Court was then invited to the statement of these witnesses, which are on record page 30 onwards of the paper book. It is thus urged that all these witnesses mentioned in paragraph 8 of the order dated 25.08.2023 were present at the time of funeral of deceased. However, accoding to the statements of these witnesses, the family members of deceased including the father of deceased arrived after the funeral was over. It is then contended that even in a case of suicidal death, information is required to be given at the concerned Police Station in terms of Section 174 Cr.P.C. However, no such information was given by the applicant or any of his family members at the concerned Police Station and the dead body of deceased was disposed off. On account of above, neither the inquest nor the post mortem of the body of deceased could be conducted. As such, neither the nature of death nor the cause of death of deceased could be ascertained. The occurrence has occurred within 7 years of marriage i.e. just after expiry of 3 years and 2 months from the date of her marriage. Applicant is the husband of deceased and an inmate of the house. As such, the burden is upon the applicant 3 BAIL No. 26929 of 2024 to not only explain the manner of occurrence but also his innocence in terms of Sections 106 and 113-B of the Evidence Act. However, the applicant has miserably failed to discharge the said burden up to this stage. As such, no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant.

8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

9. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, complicity of accused, accusations made coupled with the fact that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant in opposition to the present application for bail could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant, therefore, irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the present application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any good or sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail

10. As a result, present application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

11. It is accordingly rejected." Learned counsel for applicant submits that charge sheet/police report in terms of Sections 173(2) Cr. P. C. was submitted by the Investigating Officer against applicant on 30.6.2023. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions as offence complained of against applicant is triable by Court of Sessions. The charges were framed against applicant vide framing of charge order dated 8.1.2024. In the charge sheet/police report against applicant, there are as many as 17 prosecution witnesses nominated therein. However, upto this stage, only two prosecution witnesses of fact namely P.W. 1 Patram Singh, father of the deceased and P.W. 2 Shamala, mother of the deceased have deposed before Court below. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that since charge sheet/police report has been submitted against applicant, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. Further, once the statement of first informant P.W. 1 stands recorded before Court below, therefore, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, then in that eventuality, it cannot be said that applicant shall terrorize the witness or shall hamper the course of trial. He, therefore, submits that in view of above, no good or justifiable ground now exists to prolong the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance is placed upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw SC 373 (Paragraph 5). It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant that first informant in his deposition before Court below has himself stated that he was present at the house of the applicant on 2.5.2023 and 3.5.2023, whereas the occurrence took place on 2.5.2023, yet in spite of above, no steps were taken by him to immediately lodge the F.I.R. or inform the police about the murder/death of his daughter. He, therefore, submits that in view of above, present criminal proceedings have been engineered as an after thought. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 4 BAIL No. 26929 of 2024

10.06.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 2 years and 3 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. Furthermore, two prosecution witnesses of fact have also deposed before Court below. As such, as per evidence on record, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged so as to warrant custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. It is thus urged that in view of above, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate in the conclusion of trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present application. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the present repeat application for bail. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for state, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made, this Court finds that the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of this repeat application for bail as noted herein above are clearly borne out from the record, therefore considering the above and irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to application for bail, prayer for bail is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Ajai involved in Case Crime No. 246 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kiratpur, District Bijnor , be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with 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 :- (i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/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. (ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. 5 BAIL No. 26929 of 2024 (iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. (iv) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. POSSIBLE (v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above. September 16, 2025 HSM (Rajeev Misra,J.) HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad