Court No. - 50

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S

438 CR.P.C. No. - 4626 of 2022

Applicant :- Smt. Manju @ Mangoo

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Chahar,Kapil Kumar

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State

and perused the record.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the

applicant- Smt. Manju @ Mangoo in Case Crime No.19 of 2022, under

Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 313, 377, 504, 506, IPC, and section 3/4 D.P.

Act, Police Station Hasanpur, District Amroha.

3. Prosecution case is that the marriage of the accused Rajiv was

solemnized with the informant Smt. Mamta on 06.12.2020, but the in-laws

of the informant were not satisfied with the dowry and they were

demanding one Bolero Car and Rs.5 lacs. When the demand was not met

then they started torture to the informant and in that consequent the

husband of informant used to do unnatural inter course with the informant.

One day the brother-in-law of the informant Arun has also entered in her

room and tried to outrage her modesty. When this fact was disclosed to the

other family members they got annoyed. Meanwhile she became pregnant.

On 04.04.2021 she was assaulted by all the accused persons, due to which

her two months pregnancy was aborted. She was expelled in wearing

apparels from the house and she reached her parental house where

panchayat was called, but they refused to keep her without fulfilling the

demand of dowry.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is

the mother-in-law of the informant and she lived separately with the

informant and her husband and has no concerned with their family affairs.

It is also contended that alleged incident said to have been taken place on

04.04.2021, but FIR has been lodged after seven months without any

pleasurably explanation of delay. The victim lived at her parental house

since 04.04.2021, hence there was no occasion to assault her and abort her

pregnancy. She was under treatment but she did not fallow the instructions

of the doctor. On 17.03.2021 she went to her parental house where

abortion took place. The said incident has occurred at her parental home. It

is also contended that there are general allegations against all the accused

persons and main allegations are against the husband in her statement

recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Lastly it is contended that co-accused

Rajiv and Arun have been released on regular bail by the court below,

while Smt. Santosh and Smt. Poonam have been released on anticipatory

bail by the Session Court itself. The applicant lives in village Maithana

Inder Singh, whenever occurrence was alleged to be occurred in city

Meerut and she has no concern with the family affairs of the victim and

her husband Rajiv.

5. Learned AGA for the State opposed the bail prayer and submitted that

there are serious allegations in the FIR. Applicant is the mother-in-law of

the informant and she has responsible for the affairs of her house, but he

has not disputed the fact that the husband Rajiv and dewar Arun, have

released on regular bail, while Nand, Smt. Santosh and Smt. Poonam have

been released on anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsels for the

parties, nature of the allegations made in the FIR, nature and severity of

punishment, evidence on record, complicity of the accused-applicant, the

facts that all co-accused persons including the husband Rajiv, have already

been granted bail by the court below and all other attending circumstances,

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of

the view that a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

7. According, anticipatory bail application is allowed.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without

expressin