Allowed

Smt. Rukhsana v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2021BAIL/20674/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants interim bail to Smt. Rukhsana accused under the Cow Slaughter Act. The court imposes strict conditions regarding court presence and conduct, citing a prior order and public interest litigation regarding COVID-19 lockdown measures.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions of personal attendance and prohibition of adjournments.

Smt. Rukhsana Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20674 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Rukhsana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ehtesham Akhtar,Sanjay Kr. Srivastava,Sunil Kumar

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Smt. Rukhsana with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. -51 of 2021, under Sections -3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station -Saroorpur, District -Meerut , during pendency of trial.

¶8

From perusal of the bail application and affidavit filed in support thereof, it appears, at present:

¶9

(i) the applicant is accused of offence under Sections -3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act;

¶10

(ii) against FIR lodged on 19.02.2021, the applicant is in confinement since 20.02.2021;

¶11

(iii) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted that the applicant is a lady and she has been falsely implicated in the occurrence. The allegation is of certain quantity of beef being transported in a vehicle. The vehicle is neither owned by the applicant nor it was driven by her. Merely on account of the presence of the applicant in the vehicle, she has been falsely implicated. Thus, it has been submitted that the case of the applicant is different from other co-accused.

¶12

The above prayer has been opposed by learned AGA.

¶13

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

¶15

vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions. I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

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:

¶25

" 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. "

¶26

Order Date :- 23.7.2021 S.Chaurasia

Smt. Rukhsana v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rukhsana 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

Surya Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Rekha Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Mubarak and Another Vs State of U.P.

Veer Bahadur @ Bahadur Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Parvez Vs State of U.P.