Allowed

Shanti Maurya and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 May 2022BAIL/21546/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by a mother and daughter accused of causing the death of a newborn. The court found they were sufferers in a tragic scenario where the mother attempted suicide. Bail was granted under Section 437 Cr.P.C. with strict conditions to ensure court attendance and cooperation with the trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail subject to furnishing personal bonds, two sureties, and undertaking to attend court and not seek adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21546 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shanti Maurya And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yashpal Yadav,Lalji Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicants, who are mother and daughter, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 03 of 2022, under Sections 304, 317 IPC, Police Station Badahalganj, District Gorakhpur.

¶7

As per the FIR allegation informant has found dead body of a newly born child in the village pond which is against humanity since none has right to abandon newly born child. Consequently, necessary action was prayed for in the matter. The implication of applicants has surfaced later on the basis of statement of witnesses, including the doctor who had facilitated birth of newly born child. Applicant no.1 is unweded mother and she has stated in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. that she was in touch with one boy of her village, who had established physical relations against her wishes and she became pregnant and father of the deceased child refused to marry the applicant no.1 and ultimately a female child was born after nine months. The applicant no.1 states that she was highly stressed since father of deceased child had refused to marry her and, therefore, she jumped in the pond alongwith newly born child but was saved by her mother, who is applicant no.2. The newly born child, however, has died.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that applicants are themselves sufferers for the shameful act of father of deceased child and it was in the compelling circumstances that out of fear of societal pressures the applicant no.1 jumped in the village pond resulting in death of the child. It is stated that there was neither any intent on part of the applicant no.2 to kill the newly born child nor anything was done by them and that the entire unfortunate incident was due to miseries of the applicants. It is further argued that the applicant is in jail since 20.01.2022 and the trial is not likely to conclude shortly and that the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will

¶9

cooperate in the conduct of trial.

¶10

Learned AGA opposes the bail application but facts as have been urged on behalf of the applicant are not seriously disputed.

¶11

Having considered the respective submissions advanced; perused the materials placed on record; considering the fact that applicant no.1 is unfortunate unweded mother of the deceased child, who apparently has attempted to commit suicide alongwith newly born child and she was saved by her applicant no.2, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, at this stage, keeping in view the proviso to section 437 Cr.P.C. Above observations made in the bail order shall, however, not be construed as expression of opinion, on the merits, at the stage of trial.

¶12

Let the applicants - Shanti Maurya and Smt. Reeta Maurya , involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

ii) The applicants 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.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶16

(iv) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(v) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then,

¶18

the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(vi) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the 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 applicants 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 him in accordance with law.

¶20

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 applicants to prison.

¶21

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶22

Order Date :- 27.5.2022 Ashok Kr.

¶23

Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR Date: 2022.05.27 19:02:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shanti Maurya and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Maurya and Another 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

Jabir Vs State of U.P.

Smt.Gyanwati and Another Vs State of U.P.

Nagendra Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Vs State of U.P.

Kailish @ Kapil Vs State of U.P.