Allowed

Munni Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2022BAIL/43031/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 302 IPC, the Court granted bail to the applicant, a victim's wife and FIR informant, citing lack of direct evidence, her harmonious relationship with the deceased, and public health concerns regarding jail overcrowding during the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.

Munni Devi Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43031 of 2021 Applicant :- Munni Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.B.Pal,Shivam Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Ram Badan Pal, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶5

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 299 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Lar, District Deoria.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Incharge Sessions Judge, Deoria on 10.8.2021.

¶7

The applicant is in jail since 30.11.2020 pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶8

Sri Ram Badan Pal, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is the wife of the deceased and the informant in the FIR. As per recital in the FIR the deceased was done to death at night while she was sleeping in another room by unknown persons. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of enmity with the pradhan of the village. The relationship between the applicant and her husband was harmonious. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. No incriminating link exists against the applicant in the chain of circumstances. The applicant has three minor children aged about 5, 7 & 10 years respectively. The children have been rendered destitute by the imprisonment of the applicant. Learned counsel

¶9

for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the charge sheet was filed on 18.2.2021. Rejoining the issue after perusing the charge sheet, Sri Ram Badan Pal, learned counsel for the applicant contends that there are 24 prosecution witnesses who are yet to be examined before the trial court.

¶11

Considering the slow pace of trial in the court below, the applicant would remain behind the bar for an indefinite period as the trial is nowhere near conclusion.

¶12

Learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA for the State does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶13

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India) . These circumstances shall also be factored in

¶14

while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶15

I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶16

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant-Munni Devi be released on bail in Crime No. 299 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Lar, District Deoria, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶20

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation

¶23

application before this Court.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.2.2022 M. Tarik

¶25

Digitally signed by MOHD TARIK Date: 2022.02.25 09:34:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munni Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munni 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Boby @ Shamim Iqbal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Preeti Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Satish Vs State of U.P.

Aasif Vs State of U.P.

Aman Soni @ Ravi Soni Vs State of U.P and Another

Hashim Ali Urf Hasreen Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others