Allowed

Parvati Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2022/7179/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to Parvati Yadav in a criminal case involving sections 147, 148, and 506 IPC. The court considered the accused's lack of criminal history and unexplained injuries to a relative on the accused side. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions including furnishing sureties and maintaining court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding conduct, court attendance, and non-interference with witnesses.

Parvati Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7179 of 2022 Applicant :- Parvati Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Raza Mehdi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶3

Heard Shri Syed Raza Mehdi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vijay Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶4

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Parvati Yadav , under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No.80 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 308, 504, 506, 326 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Inayatnagar, District- Faizabad, during pendency of the trial.

¶5

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 25.02.2022 has been lodged against the applicant and other 4 named persons and another unknown person stating that on 24.02.2022 at about 10:30 p.m. the applicant and other named accused persons and 4-5 unknown persons, having lathi, danda and sharp edged weapon, after entering the house of first informant committed mar-peet with the first informant and Mathura Prasad who sustained grievous injuries.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that as per the medical report of the injured Smt. Shyampati and Mathura Prasad, both the injured persons having incise wound, stitch wound over their face and pre-molar teeth is found missing. It is further submitted that general allegation of mar-peet is assigned to the present applicant and no specific role of involvement has been attributed to the present applicant in the F.I.R. as well as the statement of injured persons. It is further submitted that the applicant's side Ramachal is aged about 50 years as per the medical report dated 25.02.2022, one laceration wound was found in his medical report over eye brows and other two injuries are related to multiple contusion and abraded contusion. The prosecution has not explained the injuries of the applicant's side.

¶7

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history

¶8

and he is languishing in jail since 30.04.2022. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant undertakes that she will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the first informant has supported the order passed by the court below and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶11

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let applicant, Parvati Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶14

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution

¶15

witnesses.

¶16

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶17

(iv) 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 are present in the trial court.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶19

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

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶21

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶22

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶23

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 6.9.2022 S. Shivhare

¶26

Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHIVHARE Date: 2022.09.06 17:15:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Parvati Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvati Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Modh. Ajju Vs State of U.P.Thru.Secy.Deptt.of Home Lko.and Another

Nisabu @ Nisabuddin Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Anoop Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home and Anr.

Manoj Kumar Soni @ Pepsi Vs State of U.P.

Maqsood Vs State of U.P.

Taukeer @ Mirchi Vs State of U.P.