Allowed

Smt. Husna Begam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Mar 2021BAIL/9359/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9359 of 2021, the High Court of Allahabad granted bail to Smt. Husna Begam charged with offences under IPC Sections 386, 420, 195, and 211. The order was issued without expressing an opinion on the merits, relying on the larger mandate of Article 21 and citing Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. Strict conditions were imposed regarding trial attendance and prohib

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of Applicant-bond and two sureties-execute an undertaking to comply with trial court orders.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9359 of 2021 Applicant :- Smt. Husna Begam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tahir Ali,Ashish Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶4

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is lady and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Earlier, applicant has lodged FIR against son of informant and also given statement against the accused under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C. due to which she has been falsely implicated. It is next submitted that Investigating Officer has not obtained the call detail of the alleged phone number by which allegation was made upon the applicant for demanding money to change the statement. Applicant has also made specific assertion of these facts in paragraph 5 of the affidavit, which was not denied in the counter affidavit. In paragraphs 22 and 23 of the affidavit, it is clearly mentioned that call recording provided by the informant in Pen Drive to Investigating Officer and on the basis of said call recording, applicant has been implicated in the present case, but Investigating Officer did not take any voice sample of the applicant for matching the voice. This fact has also not denied in the counter affidavit. Applicant has no criminal history and she is in jail since 5.9.2020, undertakes that she will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶6

Considering the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant- Smt. Husna Begam, involved in Case Crime No. 589 of 2020, under Sections- 386, 420, 195, 211 I.P.C., Police Station- Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi, be enlarged on bail on her executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶7

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The concerned Court/Authority/Jail Official shall verify the

¶8

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.

¶9

This bail order would be subject to the fulfilment of following conditions:-

¶10

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶11

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶12

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶13

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;

¶14

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

¶15

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶16

In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court her bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 25.3.2021 Arvind

¶19

Digitally signed by Justice Neeraj Tiwari Date: 2021.03.26 15:38:45 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Husna Begam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Husna Begam 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

Shivangi Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod @ Tinkle Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Ram Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhakki and Another Vs State of U.P.

Siraj Vs State of U.P.