Allowed

Smt. Nanki Devi and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2021BAIL/32057/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows bail for two female applicants, a mother and daughter charged under IPC sections 147, 149, 342, 304, 323. Granted based on Article 21 and a Supreme Court precedent, the applicants were added to FIR after two days via hearsay. Bail issued with strict attendance conditions and interim release without sureties until courts restore normal functioning.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on personal bond with two sureties each once courts resume normal functioning; interim bail without sureties granted.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32057 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Nanki Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶7

By means of the present bail application the applicant, who is facing prosecution in connection with Case Crime No.152 of 2020, u/s 147, 149, 342, 304, 323 I.P.C., P.S.-Thariyaon, District-Fatehpur, is seeking his enlargement on bail during trial. The applicants are in jail since 23.7.2020.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that applicants are ladies and interse mother and daughter. Initially the F.I.R. was got registered by one Ganga Sagar u/s 342, 308, 323 I.P.C. only against Veer Singh who happens to be the sonin-law of applicant no.1 and husband of applicant no.2. After relying upon the hearsay evidence of the co-villagers, the name of applicants has been introduced. Though the deceased has sustained as many as 17 injuries over his person but the fact remains that the name of the applicant has come after second day of the incident when the informant has made an application to the I.O. incorporating the name of the applicants, in addition to the main accused Veer Singh, attributing an omnibus and general role to all of them. Contention is that taking into account the totality of the circumstances that the applicant has not been named in the F.I.R. and subsequently relying upon the hearsay evidence of the co-villagers the name of applicants has been incorporated, the applicant may be released on bail. It is also given to understand that the applicant no.2 has given delivery to a baby on 03.7.2020, though since 23.7.2020 both of them are in jail.

¶9

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

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex

¶11

Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicants Smt. Nanki Devi and Smt. Sunaina, who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) THE APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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.

¶14

(ii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶15

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE, PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C. MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶16

(iv) THE APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS ARE 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 THEM IN

¶17

ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶18

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOURS AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANTS.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶22

1. The applicants shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

4. 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.

¶26

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶27

Order Date :- 4.1.2021 M. Kumar

Smt. Nanki Devi and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nanki Devi and Another 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

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sartaj Vs State of U.P.

Mazid Ali Vs State of U.P and Another

Smt Yashoda Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Bhatt Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sudama Vs State of U.P.