HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 41253 of 2019
Applicant :- Manjeet Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Mani
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The submission is that the complainant, Madhuri Devi, was initially married to the elder brother of the applicant, late Sandeep Kumar, who died in a road accident. After the road accident, a Motor Accidents Claims Petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, wherein an award of Rs 4,40,000/- was passed in favour of the parents of the deceased and also the informant, who is the widow of the deceased and her daughter. The dispute took place between them regarding the apportionment of the shares since in the awarded amount the father and the mother of the deceased were awarded Rs. 50,000/- each and the remaining amount was given to the informant and her daughter. The informant was annoyed with the share given to the parents of the deceased by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and therefore she filed the complaint case wherein the applicant has been summoned for facing trial under Sections 498A, Section323, Section504, Section307, Section392 and Section420 of I.P.C. and Section of Dowry Prohibition Act. It has been submitted that the informant has made false allegation that she was re-married to the applicant, after the death of her husband, who was the elder brother of the applicant. She has leveled the allegation of demand of dowry falsely. Even if allegations are accepted to be correct, no demand of dowry can be made when she herself admits that she was re-married to the applicant, after the death of her husband. The applicant is aged about 20 years only and he has alleged false implication in this case. The applicant is in jail since 03.09.2019 and has no criminal history to his credit.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.
After considering the rival submissions noted hereinabove, larger mandate of SectionArticle 21 of the Constitution of India and the material brought on record and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let the applicant Manjeet Kumar, be released on bail in S.S.T. No.13 of 2016, under Sections 498A, Section323, Section504, Section307, Section392 and Section420 of I.P.C. and Section of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar 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 :-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. 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. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 1.10.2019