Application for bail allowed. Court held it a fit case for bail considering the applicant's innocence, lack of criminal history, and the fact that key co-accused were already granted bail.
Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13117 of 2019
Applicant :- Sunita Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Smt. Ladlee Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against 32 named persons, including the applicant and 100 to 150 unknown persons alleging that on 29.12.2018, they started demonstration at Gazipur near bridge of Chakasrasan Shiv Mandir and assaulted at Police personnel in which Constable Surendra Pratap Singh had received three injuries and died.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that coaccused namely Om Prakash Chaudhary, Deepak Chaudhary and Virendra Chaudhary have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 1.3.2019 and 14.3.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9047 of 2019 and 11004 of 2019, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. There is general allegations against all accused persons. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.12.2018 (near about three months) having no previous criminal history. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no independent witness against the applicant. There is no eye witness against the applicant and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicants and admitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Sunita Devi involved in Case Crime No. 183 of 2018, under Section 143, 147, 148, 323, 341, 336,
427, 504, 506, 302, 332 IPC and 3/4 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station-Nonhara, DistrictGhazipur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.
5.The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 30.3.2019 A. Singh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is fit for bail given the co-accused status and lack of specific incriminating evidence against her.
Sunita Devi
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
