Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93472 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3422 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt Mantoriya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Singh,Ram Raksha Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Ms. Swati Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the on record. 3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Smt Mantoriya, with the following prayer:- "It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to release the applicant on bail in Complaint Case No.2524/IX/2024, under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 IPC, registered at P.S. Atarra, District- Banda during the pendency of the trial before the court below." 4. On 04.2.2025 a co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order:- "It is an old matter of the year 1996. There is no clarity in the arguments of counsel for the applicant with regard to following facts : (1) After the order dated 18.02.1998 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 570 of 1998, on which date the applicant appeared before the trial Court and applied for bail. (2) Whether in the year 1998, the applicant was granted bail or not. (3) If the applicant did not obtain bail, then how he was allowed to make signatures on the order-sheet. (4) In the year 2024, when the applicant surrendered/arrested and pursuant to which order. (5) What is the present status of trial of the applicant. Let a report be called for from the concerned Presiding Officer with regard to aforesaid query of the Court by the next date. Let this matter be listed on 27.02.2025 as fresh alongwith report of Presiding Officer. Office shall communicate this order to the concerned trial Court within 48 hours." 5. Office through its report dated 27.2.2025 has placed on record a compliance report received from the trial court. The report dated 25.2.2025 received from the Additional District and Sessions Judge 5th, Banda duly forwarded by District Judge, Banda on the same date in response to the order dated 04.2.2025 of this Court states as under:- (i) The accused persons had through advocate filed the order dated 18.02.1998 passed in Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 570 of 1998 before the said court on 26.2.1998, but neither did the said accused appear before the trial court nor any surrender application was filed and also no bail application was filed, but only the prayer was made to cancel non-bailable warrants issued against them. (ii) In the year 1998 the accused did not file any application for bail and have neither been released on bail by the court concerned. (iii) The accused filed the order dated 18.2.1998 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 570 of 1998 on 26.2.1998 with the prayer that non bailable warrants issued against them be cancelled and the summoning order dated 26.8.1996 be quashed so that the order of the High Court be complied with. The said court then recalled non- bailable warrants issued against them. After the said order signature of the accused persons used to be taken on the order sheet of the trial court. It is further stated that against the summoning order the accused persons had filed a revision which was dismissed after which an application for recall of the summoning order was filed with the prayer that they be released on personal bonds which was rejected by the court concerned on 24.01.1998 and then non bailable warrants were issued against them. The accused persons were also asked orally as to whether they have got themselves bailed out or not, on which they stated that they have not been granted bail and neither have they filed any application for bail. (iv) The accused persons have been arrested in compliance of the order dated 27.09.2024 issuing non bailable warrants against them and were produced before the court concerned on 29.11.2024 and have been sent to jail. The case has been committed to Court of Sessions on 29.11.2024. (v) The file of the present case is numbered as Session Trial No.843 of 2024, State vs. Munna and others, and is pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge 5th, Banda in which 04.3.2025 is the date fixed for framing of charge. 6. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the present matter has been initiated on a complaint dated 30.7.1996 filed by Mihilal against Munna, Motilal and the present applicant alleging offences under Sections 201, 304B, 498A I.P.C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda, with the allegation that he is a resident of district- Panna, Madhya Pradesh. His daughter Sapna Devi was married to Munna Singh on 17.5.1995 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals in which he had given gifts and dowry and sent her in vidai. When his daughter returned back to her matrimonial house for the first time after marriage she told him and her mother-Ram Devi that the accused persons told her that her father had stated of giving a Rajdoot Motorcycle and Rs.20,000/- cash which have not been given and she may go and ask for the same or else, she would be murdered. After coming to know of the same, he with his relatives and people of the village went to her matrimonial house and showed his helplessness that he is not in a position to give it and they may not trouble her. The accused persons then took his daughter but used to assault and torture her and continued to raise their demand or else they would murder her. On 07.6.1996 the accused persons forcibly gave poison to his daughter and murdered her. At that time she was having a pregnancy of two months. Then in order to cause disappearance to the dead body they burnt it and did not give any information to him. Ganesh Prasad a resident of the village when went to the neighbouring village then he came to know about the incident and after returning back told him of the incident. He gave an information to the police many times and also sent application through Registered Post to many people but no action has been taken and thus he moved the present application with the prayers that the accused persons be summoned and be arrested as per law. On the said complaint the statements of Mihilal/complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., Ganesh Prasad was recorded as P.W.-1 under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and Indrapal was recorded as P.W.-2 under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The accused persons were then summoned vide order dated 26.8.1996 passed by A.C.J.M.-II, Banda. 7. From the records it appears that against the summoning order a revision was preferred which was dismissed and then an Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.570 of 1998, Munna and others vs. IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda and others,was filed by the accused persons Munna, Moti Lal and Smt. Mantolia the present applicant, before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 18.8.1998 passed by another Bench of this Court directing that in case the applicants appear, surrender and file objection against summoning order the same shall be considered by a reasoned order. Warrants issued against the applicants were quashed. The said order reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants had filed objection against the summoning order but by inadvertence the plea that all the witnesses should have been examined was not taken. The learned Ist A.C.J.M. Banda has by a detailed order disposed of the objections, which were taken. The view taken by the Magistrate cannot be said to be erroneous. Learned counsel contended that the applicants are ready to appear before the court concerned. In case the applicants appears, surrender and file objection against summoning order on the ground that since all the witnesses were not examined the summoning order is liable to be quashed. If this plea is taken it shall be considered by a reasoned order. Considering the circumstances of the case warrants issued against the applicants are quashed. The application is disposed of finally." The said order was filed before the trial court concerned and the proceedings then therein were taken up which have already been mentioned above as per the report received from the trial court concerned. It further transpires that during pendency of the present complainant Moti Lal the father-in-law of the deceased died and thus his case stood abated. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the present case has been initiated on the basis of complaint lodged by Mihilal the father of the deceased. It is further submitted that the deceased was unwell and was referred to a higher centre by Upadhyay Nursing Home, Atarra, District Banda on 07.6.1996 after prescribing medicines, copy of the said documents has been placed before the Court which is annexure no. 7 to the affidavit in support of bail application. It is further submitted that the complainant/Mihilal had moved an application before the Circle Officer concerned on 8.7.1996 that he has come to know that his daughter died due to illness and he does not want any legal action and as such he has no objection for stay of any legal action in the matter. Further it is submitted that the applicant did not abscond and was diligently pursuing the remedy of law available to her, para nos. 18, 19 and 20 of the affidavit have been placed before the Court, the same read as under:- "18. That and thereafter the absconding of applicant since 26.02.1998 to 09.05.2000 and the summoned issued to the applicant 30.09.2011. 19. That thereafter the counsel for the applicant namely Chandra Bhan Singh in court below has been died then in the year 2012 applicant and engaged a new counsel Sri Juneer and Sri Santosh Tiwari and on 05.01.2012 said counsel has said to applicant that when complainant will appear then come because the complainant was not appearing, due to this reason applicant could not appear before the court below. 20. That the learned court below has issued N.B.W. on 27.09.2024 against the applicant and thereafter process 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued on 21.11.2024 and 22.11.2024 and thereafter on 29.11.2024 complainant has appeared before court below." 9. It is further submitted that the applicant is aged about 80 years, para-27 of the affidavit has been placed for the same and she has no criminal history, para-23 of the affidavit has been placed for the same. She is in jail since 29.11.2024. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant absconded in the present matter from the year 1998. It is submitted that abscondance of the applicant is for about 26 years which is a very long time. It is submitted that there is no proper explanation tendered by the applicant for her abscondance. Further it is submitted that the order dated 18.2.1998 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 570 of 1998, has been violated, misused and misinterpreted by the applicant and on its basis she continued to abscond. It is submitted that even on merits the present case is such in which the deceased who was a pregnant lady, died unnaturally in her matrimonial house and there was allegation of demand of dowry from her and further the dead body of the deceased was burnt without even informing any officials or family members of the deceased. It is submitted that as such the prayer for bail be rejected. 11. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is mother-in- law of the deceased. She on the pretext of the order dated 18.2.1998 of the High Court did not appear before the trial court and continued to abscond since 1998. Abscondance is for a period of 26 years. The reasons given in para nos. 18, 19 and 20 of the affidavit in support of the bail application, did not in any manner give substantial reasons for abscondance. On merits of the matter, the deceased died in her matrimonial house within 07 years of marriage. There is allegation of demand of dowry from her. The dead body of the deceased was burnt without informing to any authority or even her family members. There has been allegation of causing disappearance of evidence by burning her dead body. No ground for bail is made out. 12. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected at this stage. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Naresh Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad