Allowed

Smt. Sunita Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2022BAIL/52539/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Smt. Sunita Devi in a case involving assault and death. The court held that the applicant made out a case for bail despite the severity of the charge, subject to several conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties of the like amount, subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

Smt. Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52539 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Sunita Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Pratap Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Surya Pratap Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Smt. Sunita Devi with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No.438 of 2022, u/s 323, 504, 506, 308, 304 I.P.C., P.S.-Handia, District-Prayagaraj, during pendency of trial.

¶7

As per FIR lodged by Kalawati against the applicant, who happens to be Devrani and co-accused son of the applicant on 15.07.2022 at 20:10 hours, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. regarding dispute over construction on some property. The applicant along with her son after using abusive language, assaulted the informant and her 16 years old daughter, due to which both of them sustained injuries, Asha, daughter of the informant sustained injuries on her head and died on the next day.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is Devrani of the informant and due to petty dispute regarding property, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the injuries of the deceased are of such nature which go to show that the deceased had fallen from somewhere and had sustained injuries, even the story as narrated in the FIR is concocted. No specific role has been assigned as to who had assaulted the deceased as has been mentioned in the F.I.R. No injuries have been sustained by the informant, which falsifies the entire prosecution version. The applicant is approximately 60 years old widow and has been falsely implicated due to property dispute between the parties. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.07.2022. The applicant does not have any previous criminal history. In case, she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, she does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused,

¶11

severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Smt. Sunita Devi involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶14

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

¶15

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant 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 her in accordance with law.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 6.12.2022 Rahul.

¶19

Digitally signed by RAHUL GOSWAMI Date: 2022.12.07 13:44:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Sunita Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunita 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupesh Seth Vs State of U.P.

Ramashankar @ Bichchu Vs State of U.P.

Kalu @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Sajid Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Suman Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P.