Allowed

Soni Alias Radha v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 May 2022BAIL/15190/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court granted enlargement on bail to the applicant accused in a case involving offences under sections 147, 323, 325, 308, 304, 504 IPC. The Court imposed specific conditions regarding court attendance and trial conduct.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding court attendance and trial conduct.

Soni Alias Radha Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15190 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Soni Alias Radha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.148 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 325, 308, 304, 504 IPC, Police Station Ashothar, District Fatehpur.

¶7

Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 26.9.2021, a prompt F.I.R. dated 26.9.2021 was lodged by first informant Phuttu and was registered as Case Crime No. 148 of 2021, under sections 147, 323, 308, 304, 504 IPC, Police Station-Ashothar, District Fatehpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R. six persons namely, Suresh Kumar Yadav, Pintu Yadav, Janta Yadav, Dhirendra Kumar, Mamta Devi and Soni have been arraigned as named accused.

¶8

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 a lady and she has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned first information report. Only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including the applicant. No specific role for causing fatal injury to the deceased has been assigned by the prosecution. He further submits that the coaccused Smt. Mamta Devi has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.02.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4213 of 2022, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No.12 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. 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 applicant have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that she is ready to cooperate with the process

¶9

of law and shall faithfully make herself available before the court whenever required. He further submits that the applicant is having no criminal history and in case she will be released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 30.09.2021.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail. However, he does not dispute the fact that the similarly placed co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶11

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, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Soni Alias Radha , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶14

(ii) 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 IPC.

¶15

(iii) 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., 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 IPC.

¶16

(iv) 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.

¶17

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶18

In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Order Date :- 26.5.2022

¶21

Ajeet

¶22

Digitally signed by AJEET KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.05.27 16:26:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Soni Alias Radha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soni Alias Radha 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

Sonu Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Aman Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay @ Gulli Vs State of U.P.

Abid Vs State of U.P.

Nirmala Vs State of U.P through Its Secretary Home

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P.