Allowed

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

Allahabad HC1 Jun 2022BAIL/8249/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Allahabad High Court discharged a bail application filed by a mother implicated in a murder case. Relying on the principle of parity as her co-accused (son and brother-in-law) had already obtained bail, the Court enlarged her on bail with strict conditions regarding court attendance and bond compliance.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties with conditions to attend trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8249 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Rajeshwari Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge her on bail in Case Crime No. 47 of 2013, under Sections 364, 395, 302 IPC, Police Station Thathiya, District Kannauj.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per prosecution version cause of death of deceased was honour killing. He submits that applicant was the mother of the deceased, brother and husband of the applicant namely Durjan, Chhote and Umesh have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 8.09.2016 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30580 of 2016, therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of parity. He further submits that cause of death also has been found asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging, she has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that there is no criminal history of the applicant and she is languishing in jail since 14.01.2022.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact that coaccused have already been released on bail.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, enlargement of identically placed co-accused on bail, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Smt. Rajeshwari Devi involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and

¶10

two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant 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.

¶12

(ii) The applicant 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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

Order Date :- 1.6.2022 Israr

¶16

Digitally signed by ISRAR AHMAD Date: 2022.06.06 10:47:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajeshwari 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

Vijay Shankar Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Vs State of U.P.

Lucky Singh @ Jitendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tasleen Vs State of U.P.

Javed Vs State of U.P.

Rambabu Kushwaha Alias Ashnarain Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.