Allowed

Neelam Devi v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Allahabad HC24 May 2022/2803/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application where the court, considering the applicant's role as a mother of minor children with parents in jail, granted bail on compassionate grounds under Section 437 Cr.P.C. and imposed specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Neelam Devi on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties under specified conditions.

Neelam Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2803 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Neelam Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 21.9.2020 in Case Crime No. 279 of 2020 u/s 302 / 201 I.P.C., P.S. Reusa, District Sitapur. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as she has not committed any offence as alleged.

¶7

Attention has been drawn towards the F.I.R. wherein the sole allegation of murder and concealing the dead-body of the victim has been leveled against the present applicant and her husband. As per prosecution story when the husband of the present applicant came to know about the illicit relation of his wife with the victim he told his wife to call the victim at particular place and at that place both the accused persons have killed the victim and concealed his dead-body.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the aforesaid prosecution story is concocted inasmuch as there is no eye-witness account and only on the basis of statement of some witnesses who have stated that the present applicant was having illicit relation with one Ramu whose dead-body was recovered on the pointing out of the co-accused, the husband of the present applicant, the present applicant has been implicated.

¶9

At this stage the attention has been drawn towards the supplementary affidavit dated 13.5.2022 wherein the learned counsel for the applicant has stated in para 3 that the present applicant is having five minor children. Para 3 is being reproduced herein below :

¶10

" 3. That it is respectfully submitted that the accused / applicant has five minor children namely Soni (daughter) aged about 10 years, Moni (daughter) aged about 9 years, Ankul (son) aged about 8 years, Sheetal (daughter) aged about 7 years and Chhotu (son), aged about 3 years....."

¶11

The copy of ration card to show the aforesaid fact has

¶12

also been enclosed as Annexure no. S.A.-1, therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that since present applicant and her husband are in jail and their children are in abandoned condition as there is none in the family to look after them properly, therefore, on the compassionate ground the present applicant who is mother of those children may be enlarged on bail giving her benefit of being a lady. Charge-sheet has been filed in this case so there is no apprehension of absconding or tampering of evidence / witnesses by the applicant.

¶13

The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the allegations of F.I.R., the statement of witnesses, the contents of para 3 of the supplementary affidavit and the fact that both the parents of those children are in jail since 21.09.2020, therefore, the present applicant who is mother of children and being a lady the benefit of section 437 Cr.P.C. may be extended to her, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶16

Let the applicant Neelam Devi, involved in 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 his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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 applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

¶22

It is made clear that the co-accused may not seek parity with the present applicant as this bail has been granted considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and on the compassionate ground extending the benefit of section 437 Cr.P.C.

¶23

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 24.5.2022 Om

¶25

Digitally signed by OM PRAKASH MISHRA Date: 2022.05.25 10:05:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Neelam Devi v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam 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

Chhotkau Singh (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary(Home),Civil Secretariat,Lko

Jagrani W/O Sri Gangaram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home

Kafeel Khan S/O Moteen Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home

Sachin Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

Smt. Kusum Singh W/O Vishnu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Mohd. Shahid Hussain Alias Mohd. Shahid S/O Mohd. Sattar Ali Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.