Allowed

Sangita Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2019BAIL/142/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the second bail application of applicant Sangita Devi accused in murder cases. Bail conditions were laid down including appearance before the trial court and non-tampering with evidence. Expeditious trial was directed.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on execution of personal bond and furnishing two sureties; trial directed to be decided expeditiously.

Sangita Devi Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 142 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sangita Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pal Singh,Harish Chandra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,R.K. Shahi

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R. K. Sahi, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 503 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 504, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Rampur Karkhana, District Deoria. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 31.5.2017 passed in crl. misc. bail application no. 6698 of 2016.

¶7

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order.

¶8

The present second bail application is being pressed solely on the ground that 14 persons have been named in the FIR and though it is correct to say that it is day light murder, however, it cannot be said that of the said persons named in the FIR they were all indulged in the crime including the present applicant; no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant; applicant is a woman and she is in jail since 15.12.2015 with no previous criminal history and in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant .

¶10

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

¶11

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

¶12

Let the applicant Sangita Devi involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶14

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶15

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶16

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.

¶17

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶19

However, it is further directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

¶20

It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.

¶21

Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶22

Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Kuldeep

Sangita Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangita Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anees Vs State of U.P.

Piyush @ Aman Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Vs State of U.P.

Sanjit Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Sahu Vs State of U.P.