Allowed

Smt. Sheela Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Jun 2022BAIL/16615/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered an application for bail filed by an applicant charged with sections under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. Relying on the principle of parity as co-accused had already been granted bail, the court granted bail with conditions to ensure attendance and non-interference.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties, subject to conditions regarding appearance, non-tampering with evidence, and cooperation in the trial.

Smt. Sheela Devi Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16615 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Sheela Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Noor Muhammad

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge her on bail in Case Crime No. 530 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 506, 302 IPC, Police Station South, District Firozabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that general role has been assigned to the all the 5 co-accused including the applicant. The co-accused Rajesh and Charan Singh @ Betu have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 15.02.2022 and 16.05.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 4582 of 2022 and 6241 of 2022, therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of parity. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that there is no criminal history of the applicant and she is languishing in jail since 13.03.2022.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact that coaccused have already been released on bail.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, enlargement of identically placed co-accused on bail, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Smt. Sheela Devi involved in 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 conditions :-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant 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.

¶12

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(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. 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.

¶14

(iv) 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.

¶15

Order Date :- 10.6.2022 Israr

¶16

Digitally signed by ISRAR AHMAD Date: 2022.06.11 18:16:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Sheela Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sheela 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

Salman @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Pinki Vs State of U.P.

Arif and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav @ Vivekanand Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Tripathi Vs State of U.P.

Dolly Tekchandani Vs State of U.P.