The high court rejected the bail application of Maya Rai in a murder trial under IPC Sections 302 and 328. The court found no sufficient reason to grant bail despite the applicant's claim of lack of direct evidence.
Bail application rejected; directed trial court to expedite proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33356 of 2022
Applicant :- Maya Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Upadhyay,Rishi Kant Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dharmendra Kumar
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
The case is taken up in the revised call.
Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel for the informant, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Maya Rai with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 70 of 2022, under Sections 302 and 328 I.P.C., Police Station Sevarahi, District Kushinagar during pendency of trial.
As per prosecution case, an FIR has been lodged by the brother of the deceased on 27.02.2022 at about 13.12 hours against the applicant and her two daughters, alleging therein that the applicant was having friendly relationship with the informant's younger brother since last two years. It has also been alleged that some property belonging to the deceased was executed in favour of applicant without payment of any consideration. On 24.03.2022 at about 4:00pm the deceased had left the house saying that he was going to Delhi. On 26.03.2022 at about 09:00 o'clock, the applicant given information regarding the fact that the deceased was lying unconscious in the washroom at the residence of the applicant, therefore, the present FIR has been lodged.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and the daughters of the applicant have been exonerated after investigation. He further submits that only under some suspicion the involvement of the applicant is shown in the incident. There is no direct evidence against the applicant and there is nothing on record to show the involvement of the applicant in the alleged incident. As per Viscera report Aluminium Phosphide poison was found but there is no evidence to show that the same was given to the deceased by the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is a lady and
languishing in jail since 17.05.2022. There is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant on the other hand submit that all the circumstances goes to show the involvement of the applicant in the present case. The body of the deceased was found in the washroom at the residence of the applicant which also proves the offence against the applicant. Aluminium Phosphide poison was found in the Viscera report, hence the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.
Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application stands rejected .
However, it is expected that the trial court shall make all sincere endeavours to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. It goes without saying that if the prosecution witnesses are not turning up deliberately, then the court below has all the powers to adopt all the coercive measures provided under the Code in order to procure the presence of the witnesses.
Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 12.12.2022 Arti
Digitally signed by ARTI SHARMA Date: 2022.12.19 11:28:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant Maya Rai is eligible for bail in a murder case involving aluminium phosphide poisoning.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Maya Rai
State of U.P.
Manju Rani Chauhan
Arti Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
