Allowed

Smt Seeta Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Jun 2021BAIL/21650/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of Smt Seeta Devi, an elderly respondent in a cheating case. The court held her entitled to bail despite the severity of punishment, citing a prima facie satisfaction. Due to lockdown impediments in arranging sureties, the release was granted via a personal bond under a Public Interest Litigation, subject to strict attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond with two sureties conditional; admitted release may be on personal bond due to lockdown via PIL.

Smt Seeta Devi Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21650 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Smt Seeta Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Swetashwa Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State through video conferencing.

¶6

It is alleged that the applicant transferred a plot to the complainant Chhama Dwivedi on 08.06.2018; F.I.R.; came to be lodged on 11.8.2019 making allegation that material facts were suppressed, that is, a civil suit was pending; property was mortgaged against a loan and the sale deed was executed for Rs. 13 lakh, whereas, Rs. 8 lakh was paid in cash.

¶7

It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that in the civil suit there was no injunction; the loan on the property was cleared before executing the sale deed and a return sale deed of the property has been executed by the husband of the complainant on 09.10.2019 for the same consideration i.e. Rs. 13 lakh. It is urged that the dispute is of civil nature and the property has since been re-transferred to the co-accused.

¶8

Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, does not dispute the facts, he, however, submits that Rs. 8 lakh paid in cash has not been returned.

¶9

On specific query, learned counsel for the informant admits that there is no document registered or otherwise to show that Rs. 8 lakh was paid towards cash; applicant is an old lady. It is lastly submitted that the applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent and she is languishing in jail since 19.04.2021, there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, she will never misuse her liberty and will co-operate in the trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶12

Let the applicant, Smt Seeta Devi , involved in Case Crime No. 566 of 2019, under section 420, 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Akbarpur, District Ramabai Nagar, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses

¶14

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

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

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.

¶22

The order reads thus:

¶23

"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."

¶24

Order Date :- 16.6.2021 K.K. Maurya

¶25

Digitally signed by Justice Suneet Kumar Date: 2021.06.16 14:55:26 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Seeta Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Seeta 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

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Balram Kushvah Vs State of U.P.

Hori Lal Vs State of U.P.

Yogesh Yadav Vs State of U.P

Ram Kishore Vs State of U.P.

Laddu Pathak @Saroj Pathak Vs State of Uttar Pradesh,through Secretary Home, Govt. of U.P.