Allowed

Yamuna Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 May 2023BAIL/14594/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a criminal bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the Court allowed the application for the applicant charged with murder, releasing her on a personal bond and sureties without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Applicant allowed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Yamuna Devi Vs State of U.P. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116647

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14594 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Yamuna Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajat Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajat Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vinay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Suresh Bahadur Singh, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 404 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 326, 504, 452, 34 IPC, Police StationBaldeo, District- Mathura, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and six others and according to the FIR, applicant and six other accused persons entered in the house of the informant and started abusing him and co-accused Sanjay @ Sanju and Pramukh made assault upon son of the informant through 'khokhari' (a type of knife) and applicant also made assault through axe and due to assault made by applicant and two others, son of the informant sustained injuries and in the incident, informant also sustained injuries and while son of the informant was being taken to hospital, he died on the way.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is a lady and entire allegation made against her is totally false and baseless and actually applicant neither participated in the alleged crime nor she ever caused any injury to anyone and only due to previous enmity, applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with six others.

¶10

He further submitted that although, it is alleged that in incident, informant also sustained injury on his ears but when his medical was conducted then doctor did not find any visible injury, therefore, it appears that he was not an eye-witness.

¶11

He further submitted that although, there is specific allegation against the co-accused Sanju, Pramukh and applicant that they used sharp-edged weapon as according to the prosecution, coaccused Sanju and Pramukh made assault through 'khokhari' (a type of knife) and applicant made assault through axe but postmortem report of the deceased suggests that he sustained abrasions and lacerated wounds and he did not sustained any sharp-edged weapon injury and as axe is also a sharp-edged weapon therefore, this fact completely belies the prosecution case that applicant made assault through axe.

¶12

He further submitted that the bail of co-accused Pramukh Singh has been allowed by this Court after considering the post-mortem report of the deceased vide order dated 17.4.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15741 of 2023. He placed the bail order of co-accused Pramukh during the course of argument, which is taken on record.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from the FIR as well as from the statements of the witnesses, active participation of the applicant in the present crime is apparent and applicant although, is a lady but she actively participated in the instant crime and she made assault through axe along with coaccused Sanju and Pramukh but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that co-accused Sanju and Pramukh were having 'khokhari' (a type of knife) in their hands and applicant was also having axe and all the weapons were sharp-edged weapon and deceasd did not sustain any injury, which could be categorised as injury caused by sharp-edged weapon.

¶14

However, learned counsel for the informant submitted that as applicant was having axe in her hand, therefore, possibility cannot be rule out that she used the reverse side of the axe and therefore, merely on this ground that deceased did not sustained any incised wound, applicant should not be released on bail.

¶15

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶16

This is the specific case of prosecution that applicant used axe and post-mortem report of the deceased suggests that he did not sustain any sharp-edged weapon injury and there is no allegation against the applicant that he used butt of the axe.

¶17

Further, co-accused Sanju and Pramukh were also alleged to

¶18

have made assault through 'khokhari' (a type of knife) but bail of Pramukh has been granted by this Court after considering the fact that deceased did not sustain any incised wound and all the injuries sustained by the deceased appears to be caused by blunt object.

¶19

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discused above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant- Yamuna Devi be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶22

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶23

(ii) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶26

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶27

Order Date :- 24.5.2023

¶28

KK Patel

¶29

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yamuna Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yamuna 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

Sameer Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Kumar Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Munna Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of U.P.

Akash Goswami Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nate Pasi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others