In a bail application in a murder case, the Hon'ble Court allowed the prayer for bail of the applicant, Smt. Guria, considering her lesser role compared to co-accused who were already released and reliance on statutory provisions.
The applicant Smt. Guria be released on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties each on specified conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7896 of 2020
Applicant :- Smt. Guria Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Gupta,Atul Verma,Bal Ram Jakhar,Vikash Sharma,Vinod Kumar Yadav,Vishwajeet Mishra
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Sri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arvind Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in case crime no.412 of 2020, under Sections 147,336,504,302 I.P.C., Police-Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submission is that due to enmity, this false and frivolous case has been lodged against the applicant and her family members. It is also submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and nor any allegation has been levelled against the applicant in the F.I.R. The complicity of the applicant came into light for the first time in the statement of Smt. Arti Soni and Gaurav, who are the injured eye witnesses. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that no specific role of inflicting injuries has been assigned to the applicant except that she was hitting with bricks on the head when the deceased fell down whereas as per the version of the F.I.R., the main role by hitting with rod was assigned to Santosh Kumar Verma and one Arvind in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further argued that in the F.I.R. general allegations have been levelled against all the co-accused persons whereas there is no allegation against the applicant. There is no motive or premeditation to commit such crime. The incident occurred on the spur of moment. It is also submitted that initially the F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant under sections 147,336,308,504 I.P.C. but later on it was converted into Section 302 I.P.C. after eight days of the alleged incident. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the offence is not travelled beyond the
purview of Section 304 I.P.C. Further submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the cross case was lodged from the side of the applicant, an F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.413 of 2020 on the same day under Sections 323 and 354 I.P.C. against the complainant side.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the name of the applicant was falsely taken by the injured witnesses only with the intention to defame the applicant and her family members in the society and to give colour to the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that co-accused/Santosh Kumar Verma who have assigned the role of hitting the deceased by rod has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2021 in Criminal Bail Application no.14921 of 2021 and another co-accused, namely, Sandeep Verma was also granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.01.2022 in Criminal Bail Application No.3079 of 2021 and another co-accused, namely, Ramchandra Lodhi @ Chandrapal was also granted by this Court vide order dated 05.01.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.8326 of 2021 .
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case of the applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the co-accused who have been assigned the main role of hitting the deceased on head by road whereas the applicant was not assigned any such role which causes death of the decease, therefore, she is also entitled to be released on bail.
Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and she is in jail since 03.07.2020 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the opposed the prayer for
bail and submits that there is an allegation against the applicant of hitting the deceased on head by bricks.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and also considering the facts that the co-accused, namely, Santosh Kumar Verma, Sandeep Verma and Ramchandra Lodhi @ Chandrapal have been granted bail by this Court as stated above and larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Smt. Guria involved in Case Crime No.412 of 2020 under Sections 147,336,504,302 I.P.C.,Police-Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-
(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and her personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(5) 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.
(6) The applicant shall remain present in person, before the trial court on the date 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.
(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.
(8) 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.
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of the applicant's bail .
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 8.2.2022 dk/
Digitally signed by DEVENDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.02.10 15:19:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be granted bail in a case for culpable homicide causing death considering her alleged role and the bail granted to co-accused.
Whether the period of detention and pendency of trial warrant enlargement on bail.
Whether the applicant satisfies the requirements of bail under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anotherRelied on¶14
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Guria
State of U.P.
Shamim Ahmed
Devendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Shamim Ahmed and Devendra Kumar
Parties & counsel
