# Shakuntala Devi alias Madhuri v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 726
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13486 of 2022
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shakuntala-devi-alias-madhuri-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-47853
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Bail - Indian Penal Code-, 1860 - Sections
498-A, 304-B & 506 - Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 - Section 3/4-Applicant is mother
in law of the deceased -General allegations-no
specific allegation-Applicant living separatecause of death-Asphyxia due to ante mortem
hanging only with one ligature mark-no other
11 All. Shakuntala Devi alias Madhuri Vs. State of U.P.
727
injury-period of detention and unlikelihood of
early
conclusion
of
trial-and
absence
of
convincing material.

Bail Granted. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

Geeta Mehrotra Vs St.of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741

## Text

726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of bail which were rejected by the High
Court and some such rejections have been
affirmed by this Court also. It is seen from
the records that when the fifth application
for grant of bail was allowed by the High
Court, the same was challenged before this
Court and this Court accepted the said
challenge by allowing the appeal filed by
the Union of India and another and
cancelled the bail granted by the High
Court as per the order of this Court made
in Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 2001 dated
25-7-2001 [Rajesh Ranjan v. State of Bihar,
(2000) 9 SCC 222] . While cancelling the
said bail this Court specifically held that
the fact that the present accused was in
custody for more than one year (at that
time) and the further fact that while
rejecting an earlier application, the High
Court had given liberty to renew the bail
application in future, were not grounds
envisaged under Section 437(1)(i) of the
Code. This Court also in specific terms
held that the condition laid down under
Section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for
granting bail even under Section 439 of the
Code. In the impugned order it is noticed
that the High Court has given the period of
incarceration already undergone by the
accused and the unlikelihood of trial
concluding in the near future as grounds
sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in
spite of the fact that the accused stands
charged of offences punishable with life
imprisonment or even death penalty. In
such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact
that the accused has undergone certain
period of incarceration (three years in this
case) by itself would not entitle the accused
to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that
the trial is not likely to be concluded in the
near future either by itself or coupled with
the period of incarceration would be
sufficient for enlarging the appellant on
bail when the gravity of the offence alleged
is severe and there are allegations of
tampering with the witnesses by the
accused during the period he was on bail."

40. Considering the magnitude of
corruption, prima facie, involvement of the
accused-applicant in commission of the
offences in furtherance of the criminal
conspiracy and the fact that Three Members
Committee, headed by Former Judge of this
Court,
and
the
CBI,
in
their
inquiries/investigation, have clearly found
the accused-applicant's involvement in
huge
corruption,
forgery,
fraud
and
misusing his official position, this Court
does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the
accused-applicant on bail at this stage and,
therefore, the bail application is hereby
rejected.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 726
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13486 of
2022

Shakuntala Devi alias Madhuri ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Hom Narayan Awasthi

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A.

Bail - Indian Penal Code-, 1860 - Sections
498-A, 304-B & 506 - Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 - Section 3/4-Applicant is mother
in law of the deceased -General allegations-no
specific allegation-Applicant living separatecause of death-Asphyxia due to ante mortem
hanging only with one ligature mark-no other
11 All. Shakuntala Devi alias Madhuri Vs. State of U.P.
727
injury-period of detention and unlikelihood of
early
conclusion
of
trial-and
absence
of
convincing material.

Bail Granted. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

Geeta Mehrotra Vs St.of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Hom Narayan Awasthi,
learned counsel for the applicant, Mrs.
Kiran Singh, learned AGA-1 for the State
and perused the material available on
record.

2. The applicant Shakuntala Devi
Alias Madhuri has moved the present bail
application seeking bail in case crime No.
360 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B
and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station Khairighat,
District Bahraich.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that first information report has
been lodged with delay of about five days
without giving any plausible explanation.
The applicant is innocent and has falsely
been implicated in the present case due to
mala fide intention. The applicant is
mother-in-law
of
the
deceased.
The
marriage of applicant?s son and deceased
was
solemnized
on 25.02.2020.
The
relation between the deceased and the son
of the applicant was cordial except some
minor dispute which always happens
between husband and wife. As per the
version of FIR general allegation regarding
additional demand of dowry in the form of
Rs. two lacs and a Maruti Car and causing
cruelty to the deceased was made against
the applicant and her other family members
named in the FIR and no specific allegation
for the same was made against the
applicant or her family members named in
the FIR. Prior to the alleged incident no any
complaint was ever made either by the
deceased or her parents to any of the
authorities regarding additional demand of
dowry or causing cruelty to the deceased by
the applicant or her family members named
in the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that applicant was living
separately from the deceased and his son, as
is evident from the Parivar Register, copy of
which is annexed as Annexure No. 2 to this
bail application. The applicant could never be
the beneficiary of the additional demand of
dowry in the form of one Maturti Car and Rs.
2 lac cash. The deceased was a short
tempered lady and was annoyed with her
husband as her husband was spending money
in the medical treatment of his father and was
not fulfilling her lavish wishes, that is why
the deceased was living under stress and
mental depression and on the date of incident
the deceased committed suicide by hanging
herself with sari from the hook installed in
ceiling of the room. The husband of the
deceased informed the son of the complainant
namely Satyam on phone about the alleged
incident.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that at the time of inquest of
the corpse of the deceased, the family
members of the complainant and the
applicant were present. The post mortem of
the deceased was conducted. The cause of
death of deceased was Asphyxia due to ante
mortem hanging only with one ligature mark
and except one ligature mark there is no any
other injury found on the body of the
deceased.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
further
submits
that
the
deceased
728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
committed suicide by hanging herself. In
support of his argument, learned counsel of
the applicant placed reliance upon the
extract of Modi?s Medical Jurisprudence
wherein definition of hanging has been
described and as per the post mortem report
of the deceased it is almost identical to the
definition of hanging given in Modi?s
Jurisprudence. Learned counsel for the
applicant submit that since as per the
Modi?s jurisprudence and as per the post
mortem report of the deceased they both
are identical, it it is a case of hanging and
not of murder or strangulation.

7. 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
of the husband and submitted that there are
general allegations against the applicants
and, therefore, giving benefit of the
judgment of Apex Court in the case of
Geeta Mehrotra (supra) the applicant is
entitled to be released on bail.

8. 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 applicant is not having any
criminal history and is in jail since
14.09.2022 and that in the wake of heavy
pendency of cases in the Court, there is no
likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

9. Learned A.G.A.-1 while opposing
the prayer for bail of applicant submitted
that the death of the deceased had occurred
within seven years of her marriage and she
was being subjected to cruelty in lieu of
demand of dowry, therefore, the applicant
is not entitled to be released on bail.

10. 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 the
absence of any convincing material to
indicate the possibility of tampering with
the evidence, considering the fact that the
applicant is mother in law of the deceased
and was living separately from the
deceased and his son as is evident from the
Parivar Registrar (Annexure No.2) and she
cannot be the beneficiary of the additional
demand of dowry in the form of Maruti Car
and cash amount of Rs 2,00,000/-; there is
general allegation made in the FIR against
the applicant and her other family members
named in the FIR regarding additional
demand of dowry and causing cruelty to the
deceased and no specific allegation for the
same has been made to the applicant; nor
prior
to
the
alleged
incident
any
complainant regarding demand of dowry or
causing cruelty to the deceased was made
either by the deceased or her family
members to any of the authorities against
the applicant or her family members; and as
per the post mortem report of the deceased,
the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante
11 All. Shakuntala Devi alias Madhuri Vs. State of U.P.
729
mortem hanging with one ligature mark;
thus there appears to be force in the
arguments as advanced by the learned
counsel for the applicant that the definition
given in Modi?s Medical Jurisprudence
regrading hanging and the injury mark
given by the doctor in the post mortem
report it appears to be a case of hanging
and not of 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 cases of Geeta Mehrotra
(supra) and Dataram Singh Vs. State of
UP and another, reported in (2018) 3
SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the
applicant may be enlarged on bail.

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

12. Let the applicant, Shakuntala Devi
Alias Madhuri involved in Case Crime No.
360 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B and
506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, Police Station Khairighat, District
Bahraich be enlarged 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 and 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,
in person, 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 default of this
condition is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial
court to treat such default as abuse of
liberty of his 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.

13. 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.

14. 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 merit of
the case.
----------
730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022) 11 ILRA 730
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16961 of
2022

Anil Gaur @ Sonu @ Sonu Tomar
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, Sri Satish Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Legal
Aid-Applicant-economical
deprived
class-abandoned by near and dear ones after
his
imprisonment-no
effective
pairokardirections issued to SLSA to devise a scheme
to identify prisoners- who are unable to file
bail
application-or
unable
to
effectively
prosecute their pending bail application-to
provide legal aid to them-Jail authorities -
duty-to prevent "undue long detention of
prisioners-under Regulation 439 (a)of the U.P.
Jail Manual-nodirect evidence against the
Applicant-no motive-case of circumstantial
evidence-recovered items were planted-no
independent witness to the recovery.

Bail allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

1. Mohammad Giasuddin Vs St.of Andhra
Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287

2. Sunil Batra (II) Vs Delhi Administration,
(1980) 3 SCC 488

3. Sheela Barse Vs St.of Mah., (1987) 4 SCC 373

4. Nilabati Behera (Smt) @ Lalita Behera
(Through
the
Supreme
Court
Legal
Aid
Committee) v. St.of Orissa and Ors, (1993) 2
SCC 746

5. Shabnam Vs U.O.I. & ors., (2015) 6 SCC 702

6. Gobardhan Singh & anr.Vs St.of U.P, 2013
SCC Online All 13141

7. Bachchey Lal Vs St.of U.P. , 2014 SCC Online
All 15093, 2014 SCC Online All 14128, 2014 SCC
Online All 14986

8. Junaid Vs St.of U.P., 2021 (6) ADJ 511

9. Ajeet Chaudhary Vs St.of U.P. & anr., (2021) 1
ADJ 559

10. Queen-Empress Vs Pohpi & ors. , 1891 SCC
Online All 1

11. Hussainara Khatoon & ors. (IV) Vs Home
Secretary, St.of Bihar, Patna, (1980) 1 SCC 98

12. Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot Vs St.of Mah.
& ors.

13. Sukh das Vs Union Territory of Arunachal
Pradesh

14. St.of Andhra Pradesh Vs Challa Ramkrishna
Reddy, (2020) 14 SCC 126

15. Chhotey Vs St.of U.P. in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.5328 of 2018

16. Rajnish v. St.of U.P. in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.20805 of 2022

17. Mahesh Chandra Shukla Vs St.of U.P. in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17940 of 2022

18. Vikas Dwivedi Vs St.of U.P. in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.22375 of 2020

19. V. Ramu Vs St.of U.P. in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.17912 of 2019

20. Khatri & ors. (II) Vs St.of Bihar & ors.,
(1981) 1 SCC 627

21. Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot Vs St.of
Mah., (1978) 3 SCC 544