Allowed

Smt. Neha v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2022BAIL/43096/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application filed by a female accused in a criminal case involving kidnapping and forgery. The High Court granted bail, noting she has no prior record and similar co-accused were on bail, imposing standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties in amounts to the court's satisfaction, subject to specific conditions regarding trial attendance and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43096 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Neha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gauri Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 293 of 2021, under Sections 363, 311, 120 B, 370(5), 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S.- Gandhi Park, District Aligarh.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that as per the version of the first information report, the applicant and other were involved in kidnapping of child, however nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. He next submits that main allegation is against Aakash and the child was recovered from his possession. He further submits that identical situated co-accused has been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.44768 of 2021 and 48972 of 2021 vide order dated 04.01.2022 and 22.12.2021 respectively. He claims parity of the aforesaid order. He further submits that police has falsely implicated in two other cases arising out the same incident. He next submits that she is enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 45 of 2021. He next submits that there is no other criminal history against the applicant which has been explained in para 21 of the bail application. He further submits that the applicant is law abiding citizen and she is languishing in jail since 26.07.2021. In case, she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the fact that similarly situated co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and further there is no other previous criminal history against the

¶9

applicant.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, I find that similarly circumstanced coaccused persons have already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court and further he has explained the criminal history properly in the bail application, coupled with the fact that applicant is lady and languishing in jail since 26.07.2021, thus without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Smt Neha involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. She 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;

¶15

(3) 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.; and

¶16

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation

¶17

under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶20

Order Date :- 24.2.2022 A.Kr.

¶21

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR Date: 2022.02.25 09:43:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Neha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neha 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Abhinva Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Patel Vs State of U.P.

Bantu Vs State of Up.

Gaurav Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Tripathi Vs State of U.P.