SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Manorama vs State Of U.P. on 6 January, 2020


?Court No. – 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 56111 of 2019

Applicant :- Smt. Manorama

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raksha Tiwari

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

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

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. She has falsely been implicated in the present case. There was no dispute of demand of dowry. The applicant has not harassed or tortured to the deceased. The FIR of the alleged incident has been lodged against 5 persons including the applicant making general allegation. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. As per postmortem report the cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore, viscera was preserved. Viscera report has not been received till date. At the time of alleged incident the applicant was living separate from the deceased and her husband. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. The co-accused Ram Suphal, father-in-law of the deceased, has already been released on bail by this court vide order dated 20.12.2019 in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 57392 of 2019, therefore, applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant has no criminal history and she is in jail since 16.8.2019.

Per contra; learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

Let the applicant Smt. Manorama involved in Case Crime No. 146 of 2019, under Sectionsection 498A, Section304B, Section504, Section506, Section352 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mau, District Chitrakoot be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and she shall cooperate with the trial.

3. The applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

Order Date :- 6.1.2020




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation