Allowed

Smt. Sumitra Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2020BAIL/42545/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to an elderly applicant (70+ years) with no criminal history charged under IPC sections 419, 420, 447, 467, 468, 471. Court ordered release on personal bond and two sureties post-factum, citing COVID-19 lockdown directions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on a personal bond and two sureties, with specific conditions regarding future conduct and verification of bail orders.

Smt. Sumitra Devi Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42545 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Sumitra Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

¶5

This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant, Smt. Sumitra Devi, who is involved in Case Crime No.290 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 447, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., Police Station- Phaphund, District- Auraiya.

¶6

It has been averred that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further averred that the applicant had executed the saledeed bonafidly while she was in possession over the property in dispute and if her husband had also executed a sale deed, she was not responsible with regard to it. It is also averred that the applicant is in jail since 01.08.2019 and if she is released on bail, there is no chance of her absconding or misusing the liberty of bail or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.

¶7

Though the Bail has been opposed, it has not been denied that there is no criminal history of the applicant. Further it is evident from paragraph 5 of the affidavit that the applicant is more than 70 years of age.

¶8

Upon perusing the record and upon considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶9

Let the applicant, Smt. Sumitra Devi, who is involved in Case Crime No. 290 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 447, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., Police Station- Phaphund, District- Auraiya, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate / Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶10

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶11

(ii) The applicant will abide by the orders of the court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶12

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activity.

¶13

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

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

¶15

(vi) 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.

¶16

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.), shall also be complied with.

¶17

The order dated 6.4.2020 reads as under:

¶18

" 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 non-availability 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."

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

Order Date :- 15.4.2020 vkj

Smt. Sumitra Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sumitra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax Lko.

M/S Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax Lko.

The Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. Vs the Commissoner Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow

Idrish Vs State of U.P.

Rihan Sheikh @ Opo and Another Vs State of U.P.

Isrial @ Nafees Ahmad Vs State of U.P.