Allowed

Smt. Chatari Bai @ Chapra Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Jun 2022BAIL/13531/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench allowed bail to Smt. Chatari Bai in a POCSO/rape case involving enticement and abduction. Court considered victim's inconsistent statement and coordinate bench bail order while framing standard conditions to prevent witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of no witness tampering and court appearance.

Smt. Chatari Bai @ Chapra Devi Vs State of… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13531 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Chatari Bai @ Chapra Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Baldev Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Baldev Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. submits that the information regarding the present case has been sent to the first informant.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Smt. Chatari Bai @ Chapra Devi under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 20 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376(3), 109 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 17/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station- Gohan, District- Jalaun, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act, Jalaun place Orai vide order dated 11.02.2022.

¶8

Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 09.02.2021 has been lodged by the father of the victim against the applicant and other 6 persons on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. stating therein that the first informant has lodged the earlier first information report being Case Crime No. 195 of 2020 against co-accused Pintu with regard to earlier incident, in which co-accused Pintu enticed away his minor daughter. It is further alleged that after supurdagi of the victim to the first informant, the applicant and other co-accused persons put pressure on the first informant for the marriage of his daughter with co-accused Pintu and if the first informant does not get his daughter's married to co-accused Pintu, then, he will have to face dire consequences.

¶9

After lodging the first information report, the statements of the victim was recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. on 16.03.2021 and 19.03.2021 respectively; medical examination of the victim was conducted on 20.03.2021. After recording the

¶10

statement of the other prosecution witnesses, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the applicant and 6 other co-accused persons. Applicant was arrested on 22.01.2022.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant is mother of the co-accused Pintu. It is further submitted that the victim has not supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. and she has stated that she called the co-accused Pintu. It is further submitted that there is no allegation against the present applicant for enticing away the minor daughter of the first informant. It is further submitted that first information report has been lodged against the applicant and other 6 named persons stating therein that co-accused Pintu enticed away minor daughter of the first informant.

¶12

It has also been submitted that co-accused, Jagannath (father of the main accused Pintu) having similar role, has already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.04.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8901 of 2022. He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But they would not point out any material to the contrary. 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.

¶14

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶15

(a) The applicant is mother of the co-accused Pintu;

¶16

(b) The victim has not supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., it would not be appropriate to discuss the same at this stage;

¶17

(c) Co-accused, Jagannath (father of the main accused Pintu) having similar role, has already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Let applicant, Smt. Chatari Bai @ Chapra Devi 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:

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶25

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

¶26

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or

¶27

commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

Order Date :- 3.6.2022 Ishan

¶34

Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.06.10 11:34:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Chatari Bai @ Chapra Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chatari Bai @ Chapra 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Pashupati Shah Vs State of U.P and Another

Vishal Kumar Valmiki Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Yadav @ Arun Vs State of U.P.

Zakir Vs State of U.P and Another

Gulfam Vs State of U.P and 3 Others