Allowed

Harpyari v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2022BAIL/1776/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed bail to an elderly female applicant (70 years) accused of a general role in a criminal assault causing death. The court noted her age, lack of specific role, and prior criminal record, permitting release on bond with sureties subject to strict conditions against tampering and resignation to the trial.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and cooperation in trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1776 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Harpyari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Khalid,Pawan Kumar Yadav

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Mohammad Khalid, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned counsel representing the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Harpyari for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.300 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 304, 308, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Rajpura, District Sambhal, during trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and she has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶9

It is further submitted that the applicant is a lady of the age of about 70 and she has been falsely implicated in this case only on account of her relation with the rest of the accused persons named in the first information report. It is also submitted that in fact on 27.08.2021 the informant's side of this case was assaulted by the applicant's side pertaining to which an F.I.R. was lodged on 28.08.2021 by the instant applicant namely Harpyari against Rajesh, Jeetpal and Jagdish of the informant's party, wherein three persons from the side of the applicant namely Satyaveer, Harpyari (applicant) and Phoolwati were injured and the instant F.I.R. has been lodged as a counter-blast of the same.

¶10

It is next submitted that in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the prosecution witnesses including the injured witnesses namely Rajesh, Mithilesh, Ganga Shree and Jagdish, general role of assault has been levelled against all the accused persons except that one co-accused namely Satyaveer is shown to be carrying a country-made pistol at the time of incident, however, no specific role of any kind has been attributed to the instant applicant.

¶11

It is further submitted that four persons including the deceased Jagdish are shown to have been sustained injuries in the incident, however, all the injuries are of the nature of abrasions and contusions and the death of the deceased Jagdish, who has sustained two lacerated wounds on his parietal and occipital region, has been caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries, however, the applicant, who is old-aged lady, could not cause such injuries. Apart from the injuries sustained by the deceased Jagdish, only one injury of grievous nature was found sustained by the injured Mithilesh and the injuries sustained by other injured persons are of simple nature. It is also submitted that there is also a cross version of the incident and the applicant had actually gone to the police station concerned for the purpose of lodging F.I.R. of the incident, however, the same was not recorded, which is substantiated by the General Diary entry of the police station concerned of date 29.08.2021 of the time of 09:30 hours.

¶12

It is further submitted that the applicant is an old-aged lady of 70 years and she is in jail in this case since 19.09.2021, chargesheet in this case has already been submitted and the applicant is not carrying any criminal history. There is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶13

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that having regard to the role played by the applicant, she is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that general role of assault has been levelled against all the accused persons named in the first information report including the instant applicant namely Harpyari. The applicant is shown to be of about 70 years. Perusal of the statement of the injured persons and other eye witnesses reveals that general role of assault with 'lath-danda' has been assigned to all the accused persons and no specific role of any kind has been assigned to the instant applicant. There is also a cross version of the incident. The parties are inimical to each other as is evident from the record. The case of the applicant being lady is distinguishable from the case of rest of the accused persons. Charge-sheet in this case has already been filed. Applicant is in jail in this case since 19.09.2021 without any previous criminal history. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶15

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence,

¶16

complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed .

¶17

Let the accused/applicant- Harpyari involved in abovementioned case, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

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

¶22

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

¶24

Order Date :- 21.4.2022 Anupam S/-

¶25

Digitally signed by ANUPAM SINGH PATEL Date: 2022.04.21 13:49:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Harpyari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpyari 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalta Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Shamshad Vs State of U.P.

Sharda Devi Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home