Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 16

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4781 of 2020

Applicant :- Geeta Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Rajpoot Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sanjay Rajpoot, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Geeta Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 363 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Sungrahi, District Pilibhit.

¶7

The prosecution case as unfolded in the F.I.R is that the sole named accused Geeta Devi who is the present applicant had called the deceased (Aman) on 27.08.2019 at about 12:00 a.m. from his house on the pretext that some guests have come to her house who are calling him on which Aman went with her to her house and did not return thereafter for quite sometime on which the first informant went to the house of Geeta Devi and asked her about the whereabouts of his son to which she did not give any reply and kept silent on which the first informant suspected a foul play and later on called his brothers Hari Shankar and Liladhar and went to the house of Geeta Devi and found his son lying dead on the second floor of the house. He then lodged an F.I.R on 29.08.2019 at about 17:49 hrs after the recovery of the dead body.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the version as setforth in the F.I.R about the dead body being recovered on the second floor at the house of Geeta Devi is false. He draws the attention of the Court to the inquest / Annexure- 2 to the affidavit in which there is a specific recital that the dead body of Aman as per the version given by Banwari lal, the first informant is lying on the second floor of the house of his uncle Durga Prasad. Further in the inquest it is mentioned that subsequently, thereupon the dead body was shifted from the second floor of the house of Durga Prasad from where it was found and brought to the courtyard in the house of the first informant Banwari Lal and the inquest was then conducted there. He further draws the attention to Annexure- 4 being the site plan in the present matter in which the dead body is shown to be at a place on the first floor of the house but the

¶9

Investigating Officer has not mentioned as to whose house it is from where the body was recovered. He disputes the version in the F.I.R that the dead body was found in a room on the second floor of the house of the applicant. He states that the said version is false just in order to give the case a different look. He further proceeds to argue that except for the version in the F.I.R of calling the deceased and taking him away on 27.08.2019 at about 12:00 p.m, there is no other evidence to implicate the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 01.10.2019 having no criminal history and is a lady.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments as raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Let the applicant, Geeta Devi , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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:-

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶15

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶16

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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

¶17

liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC.

¶18

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶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 :- 7.2.2020 AS Rathor

¶21

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Geeta Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak @ Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kamal and 02 Others Vs State of U.P.

Shashikant @ Chunchun Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Aleem Vs State of U.P.