SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Mateena And Another vs State Of U.P. on 6 December, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 54163 of 2019

Applicant :- Smt. Mateena And Another

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Ch. Dil Nisar

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

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

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased. They have falsely been implicated in the present case. There was no dispute of demand of dowry. The applicants have not harassed or tortured the deceased. In postmortem report the cause of death of the deceased has been shown asphyxia as a result of antemortem throttling. Three injuries have also been found on the body of the deceased. The applicants have not committed the alleged offence. There is no direct evidence against the applicants. It has further been submitted that at the time of the alleged incident the applicants were living separate from the deceased and her husband. During the trial the statement of informant Mohsin, who is brother of the deceased has been recorded as P.W. 1 in which he has not supported the prosecution version and has been declared hostile. He has clearly stated that there was no dispute of demand of dowry. The statements of Aslam (father) and Sammon (brother) of the deceased have also been recorded as P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 in which they have also not supported the prosecution version and have been declared hostile. In their statements they have clearly stated that there was no dispute of demand of dowry. In the statements of the above witnesses it has come that at the time of the alleged incident the applicants were living separate from the deceased and her husband in the same house. The applicants have no concern with the alleged incident. There is no other cogent evidence to connect the applicants with the alleged offence. There is no criminal history of the applicants and are in jail since 27.4.2018.

Per contra, learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail.

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

Let the applicants Smt. Mateena and Nisar involved in Case Crime No. 71 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B, SectionIPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Fatehpur, District Saharanpur be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

1. The applicants will not tamper with the evidences.

2. The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate with the trial.

3. The applicants will 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 applicants.

Order Date :- 6.12.2019

A.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 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