Allowed

Km. Nisha v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2022BAIL/1370/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal bail application was heard by the Allahabad High Court. The applicant, an unmarried female accused of rioting and murder, sought bail. The court found her role distinguishable from the deceased-causer accused and noted lack of medical evidence against her companions. Bail was granted subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to specified conditions regarding attendance, evidence tampering, and trial conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1370 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Km. Nisha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.

¶6

Heard Sri Abhay Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Km. Nisha , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 138 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Utraon, District Prayagraj.

¶8

The prosecution case as per the first information report lodged on 09.05.2021 by Anand Kumar is that on 08.05.2021 at about 7 PM his mother Smt. Surema Devi was sitting on a cot outside the house, when co-accused Shailendra Kumar came there and all of sudden hit her with an iron rod on her head due to which she died on the spot. He and his sister Priyanka Kumari came forward to rescue her on which the family members of Shailendra being his father Shyam Lal, his mother Nirmala Devi, his brother Krishna and his sister Nisha (the present applicant) assaulted him and his sister Priyanka Kumari. The neighbours intervened and saved them on which they ran away by extending threats. His mother was taken to the hospital where the doctors declared her dead.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has further placed paragraph 7, 9 and 11 of the affidavit and has argued that Anand Kumar, the first informant and his sister Priyanka Kumari have not received any injury and there is no medical examination report or any injury report of the said two persons. The allegation of their being assaulted is not supported by any medical evidence. It is argued that the applicant is an unmarried girl. Paragraph 17 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is further argued that the role of causing injury to the deceased Smt. Surema Devi is assigned to co-

¶10

accused Shailendra Kumar only due to which she has died which also gets substantiated from the postmortem examination report in which the deceased was found to have received although three injuries but the injuries were on the head and the cause of death was coma as a result of antemortem head injury. It is argued that the case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused Shailendra Kumar. It is argued that the applicant is a girl and is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 19 and is in jail since 12.11.2021.

¶11

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments as aforesaid.

¶12

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the role of assault upon the deceased Smt. Surema Devi is assigned to co-accused Shailendra Kumar by an iron-rod on her head and the cause of death is coma as a result of antemortem head injury. The first informant and Priyanka Kumari are also alleged to have been assaulted by the applicant and 03 other co-accused persons but they are not medically examined. The applicant is an unmarried girl.

¶13

The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of coaccused Shailendra Kumar.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Km. Nisha , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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:-

¶16

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of

¶19

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.

¶20

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶21

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC.

¶22

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶23

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶24

The bail application is allowed.

¶25

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶26

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶27

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.

¶28

Order Date :- 4.2.2022 AS Rathore

¶29

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Km. Nisha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Nisha 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

Kannauji Lal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ram Raj Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Dubey @ Rajan Vs State of U.P.

Suhail Vs State of U.P.

Moin Ahmad @ Moin Pradhan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others