Partly allowed

Mundi @ Sunita Pasi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2019BAIL/19172/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant charged with murder and conspiracy. Noting no significant subsequent developments and considering a prior bail order by another bench and the applicant's limited role, a prima facie case for bail was made out. The applicant must execute a bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties with conditions regarding tampering, witness harassment, and appearance.

Mundi @ Sunita Pasi Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19172 of 2018 Applicant :- Mundi @ Sunita Pasi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Mishra,Harish Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Shish Ram

¶3

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶4

Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Mishra learned AGA for the State and Sri Pradeep Kumar holding brief of Sri Ram Shish Ram, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶5

Applicant has moved the present third bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 639 of 2016 under Sections 147,148,149,307,302,120B IPC PS Dhumanganj District Allahabad. The first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 10.3.2017 and 12.1.2018 respectively.

¶6

Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant in the third bail application is that the first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.3.2017. The second bail application was rejected vide order dated 12.1.2018 on the ground that there was no subsequent development. The said order shows that the bail application was rejected by this Court keeping in view the provisions of Section 437(ii) CrPC on the ground that the applicant is a previous convict for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Further contention is that in the present case co-accused Naresh has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 8.5.2017 passed by this Court. This fact was considered by this Court while rejecting the second bail application. Contention is that as far as question of rejection of the first and second bail applications on the ground of Section 437(ii) CrPC is concerned, the earlier conviction of the applicant was done by the trial court, aggrieved against which an appeal has been filed before this Court and in appeal bail has been granted to the present applicant by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.5.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.766 of 2011, copy of which has been annexed at page 39.

¶7

I have perused the said order by means of which the trial court has convicted the present applicant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The perusal of the said order shows that the applicant has been convicted with the finding that she was found throwing bomb on some person. However, the perusal of the order dated 30.5.2011 passed by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.766 of 2011, shows that another Bench of this Court had granted bail to the applicant in the said case keeping in view the fact that "the post mortem report indicates that injuries are superficial in nature" and with the said observation, bail was granted to the applicant.

¶8

Further contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that even if the entire prosecution story is believed to be true in toto, the only role as assigned to the applicant in the prosecution case is that of hatching a conspiracy (120B). Further contention is that the

¶9

applicant is a woman and she is in jail since 28.9.2016 and in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

The counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA have very strongly and vehemently opposed the bail application of the applicant, however it has not been disputed that the role assigned to the applicant in the present case is that of 120B IPC (conspiracy). It has also not been disputed that in the case in which she was convicted an appeal was filed before this Court and she has been granted bail by means of an elaborate and speaking order passed by another Bench of this Court.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

Let the applicant Mundi @ Sunita Pasi 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:

¶14

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

Order Date :- 18.1.2019/SP

Mundi @ Sunita Pasi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mundi @ Sunita Pasi 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

Lalaram and Another Vs State of U.P.

Billoo Vs State of U.P.

Bujharat Vs State of U.P.

aniruddh narain tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kamlesh Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Karan Singh @ Kakku Vs State of U.P.