Allowed

Phoola Devi Alias Priyanka Devi v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Allahabad HC19 May 2022/2288/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application in a case involving murder (dowry and incest conspiracy allegations). The court noted absence of eyewitnesses, delay in FIR, non-corroborative post-mortem report, and bail for a co-accused. Bail was granted subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Phoola Devi released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding court attendance and cross-country travel.

Phoola Devi Alias Priyanka Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2288 of 2022

¶2

Applicant :- Phoola Devi Alias Priyanka Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

¶3

Counsel for Applicant :- Deo Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. .

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶6

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 03.01.2021 in Case Crime No.604/2020, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police StationDhaurahara, District-Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as she has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

¶8

As per contents of first information report, the applicant has been accused of causing the death of one Raju who is brother of informant. As alleged, the applicant is brother-in-law of wife of the deceased and allegedly had been in adulterous relation ship with wife of the deceased due to which they conspired to cause death of the deceased.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that there is no eye witness account of allegations made against the present applicant. It has also been submitted that the first information report has been lodged on 16.12.2020 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. whereas the incident is said to have taken place on 26.11.2018. As such, it is submitted that there is considerable delay in lodging of the first information report. It has been further submitted that the post-mortem report does not support the allegations made in the first information report. It has been further submitted that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail granted to her.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the co-accused of this case, namely, Mishri Lal, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.02.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3367 of 2021, therefore, the present applicant may be released on the basis of principles of parity. Besides, the preset applicant being a lady, the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. may also be extended to her.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶12

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has however opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the statement of witnesses recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. clearly substantiates the allegations made in the first information report and as such the applicant is not to be enlarged on bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of issue at this stage and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that there is no eye witness account of the allegations made in the first information report, the applicant does not have any previous criminal history, the post-mortem report also does not clearly corroborate the allegations levelled against applicant in the first information report, co-accused, Mishri Lal has been granted bail and the applicant being a lady may be given benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C., as such, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶14

Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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

¶19

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 applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶22

Order Date :- 19.5.2022 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Suresh/

¶23

Digitally signed by SURESH CHANDRA Date: 2022.05.20 16:55:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Phoola Devi Alias Priyanka Devi v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phoola Devi Alias Priyanka Devi v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Kumar @ Ravendra Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Sharvan Kumar @ Putri Vs State of U.P.

Shatrohan Second Bail Vs State of U.P.

Ramu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary, Home Deptt. Lko.

Ashraf Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Jitendra Alias Jitu S/O Ram Dulare (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.