Allowed

Smt Meeta Gupta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jun 2020BAIL/11138/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail for Smt Meeta Gupta in a murder case involving conspiracy charges. Court directed her personal bond and two sureties and imposed strict conditions, including compliance with lockdown guidelines regarding sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding attendance, evidence tampering, and lockdown compliance.

Smt Meeta Gupta Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11138 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt Meeta Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atharva Dixit,Anupam Tripathi,Manish Tiwary(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Sharma,Govind Saran Hajela

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ghanshyam Kumar, learned AGA for the State through video-conference. However, Sri Govind Saran Hajela, learned counsel for the informant has neither appeared through video-conference nor he has submitted written objections to the bail application. Vide order dated 28.05.2020, it had been made plain that if learned counsel for the informant continues to face any difficulty in participating in the hearing, he may necessarily submit his written objections. Since, no written objections have been filed and no communication has been made in that regard through e-mail, the present case is being proceeded in absence of learned counsel for the informant.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Smt. Meeta Gupta with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. - 837 of 2019, under Sections - 307, 302, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station - Sadar Bazar, District - Shahjahanpur , during pendency of trial.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

¶8

(i) the applicant is accused of under Sections 307, 302, 120-B, 34 IPC;

¶9

(ii) against FIR lodged on 03.12.2019, the applicant, who is a lady is in confinement since 15.12.2019 that is for more than six months;

¶10

(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case she is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;

¶11

(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;

¶12

(v) chargesheet has already been submitted, however, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;

¶13

(vi) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not named in the FIR. In any case, the assault is alleged to have been carried out by three men only. Further, it has been submitted that the first informant also did not name the applicant in his original statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the name of the applicant has been introduced on mere rumour or gossip that too by referring to her as 'mummy' of the co-accused Abhay;

¶14

(vii) the bail application has been opposed by learned AGA, who would submit that in the supplementary statement of the informant as also other case diary material, the name of the applicant had appeared by attributing her role in the criminal conspiracy, leading to murder of Rakesh Kumar Yadav. She is stated to be the mother of the co-accused and therefore, she is not entitled to bail;

¶15

(viii) having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, while no inference of fact is required to be drawn at this stage and none is being suggested by this order, purely for the purpose of consideration of bail application, it appears, the applicant is entitled to bail in view of the facts noted above in sub para (vi);

¶16

(ix) 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.

¶17

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.

¶18

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Smt. Meeta Gupta 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

¶19

imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(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.

¶27

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:

¶28

" 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. "

¶29

Order Date :- 4.6.2020 Abhilash

Smt Meeta Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Meeta Gupta 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

Lalita Devi Vs State of U.P.

Mangal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Iqrar Urf Bhanta Vs State of U.P.