Allowed

Gudiya Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jun 2022BAIL/12066/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by the applicant in a case under Sections 304 and 34 IPC. The court granted bail based on parity with co-accused who had already been released, subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and non-interference with the trial.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties of like amount.

Gudiya Devi Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12066 of 2022

¶3

Applicant : Gudiya Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge her on bail in Case Crime No.126 of 2021, under Sections 304, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Sikariganj, District Gorakhpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per FIR version applicant called the deceased to her parental house where deceased was poisoned by the applicant and in-laws. He next submits that applicant informed regarding the incident to the informant as well as police on 112 dial and 108 ambulance. He further submits that co-accused Shiv @ Shiv Kumar Kannaujia and Durgawati Devi, father-in-law and mother-inlaw of the deceased, have been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Benches of this Hon'ble Court, vide orders dated 9.5.2022 and 31.5.2022 in Criminal Misc.Bail Application Nos.10870 of 2022 and 11276 of 2022, respectively. Applicant's case is at par with the co-accused enlarged on bail, therefore, she claims parity. He further submits that applicant has no criminal history. He next submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 28.1.2022.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail but concedes the factual aspects of the matter.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, enlargement of identically placed co-accused Shiv @ Shiv Kumar Kannaujia and Durgawati Devi on bail, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let applicant Gudiya Devi involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following

¶10

conditions :-

¶11

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence and pressurize the witnesses during trial.

¶12

(ii) 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.

¶13

(iii) 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

(iv) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(v) 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.

¶16

Order Date :- 7.6.2022

¶17

m.a.

¶18

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AYYUB Date: 2022.06.08 15:10:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gudiya Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gudiya Devi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Deepak Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rizwan Kuraishi @ Monu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Pradhan Valmiki @ Ajay Vs State of U.P.

Udaiveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Gupta Vs State of U.P.