Allowed

Lalita Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jun 2020BAIL/10712/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Chamber bail application allowed. The High Court released the applicant on bail by recognising her cooperation and lack of criminal history, imposing standard conditions including bonds, undertakings, and special directions regarding the缺席 of evidence witnesses and compliance with lockdown order.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties or executing a personal bond alone due to COVID-19 lockdown conditions, subject to attending all trial dates and filing an undertaking r

Lalita Devi Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10712 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Lalita Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- K.K.Rao,Vimal Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vimal Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State through video-conference and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Lalita Devi with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. - 298 of 2019, under Sections - 323, 352, 304 I.P.C., Police Station - Tarya Sujan, District - Kushi Nagar , during pendency of trial.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

¶8

(i) the applicant is accused of under Sections 323, 352, 304 IPC;

¶9

(ii) against FIR lodged on 08.06.2019, the applicant is in confinement since 27.12.2019;

¶10

(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation;

¶11

(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;

¶12

(v) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, at the outset it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in exact similar allegations, co-accused Vinay Singh, Mansa Devi and Pradeep Singh have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 51758 of 2019, 10050 of 2020 and 7251 of 2020, vide orders dated 27.11.2019, 03.03.2020 and 19.02.2020 respectively. For the reasons contained in those orders, the present applicant is also entitled for bail.

¶13

(vi) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial.

¶14

This Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs. State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions. I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.

¶15

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Lalita Devi involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If, in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶20

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶21

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶22

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶23

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:

¶24

" Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to nonavailability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶25

Order Date :- 4.6.2020 Abhilash

Lalita Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalita 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

Deepak Saini @ Chhotu @ Deepak Sauni Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Rajak Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Rawat Vs State of Up

Mangal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt Meeta Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Iqrar Urf Bhanta Vs State of U.P.