Allowed

Kavita Bind v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jun 2023BAIL/20885/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to Kavita Bind, charged with murder conspiracy under the IPC. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents regarding speedy trial and personal liberty, noting the applicant had been incarcerated for a significant period while other co-accused had already been granted bail. The applicant was released on a personal bond and two

What did the court decide?

The applicant Kavita Bind was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of equal amount to be verified by the trial court.

Kavita Bind Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:124989

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20885 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kavita Bind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

On 21.5.2021 an F.I.R. was lodged at P.S. Rohania, Varanasi, as a dead body of an unknown person aged about 25 years was lying behind the red cross society building. No one was named in the F.I.R. Investigation started and during course of investigation, police came to know that the present applicant, wife of Tara Shanker, has some illicit relations with co-accused Ajay Yadav @ Pappu and in conspiracy with the said Ajay Yadav @ Pappu and his friend Deepak @ Deepu, the murder of the deceased was caused.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has not committed the present offence. No role in the commission of the crime has been assigned to the present applicant. She is the widow of the deceased and a false allegation of illicit relationship between the co-accused Ajay Yadav @ Pappu and her has been levelled. It is further submitted that as per prosecution case the police had arrested the present applicant alongwith co-accused Ajay Yadav @ Pappu and Deepak @ Deepu together and on the pointing out of the co-accused Ajay Yadav @ Pappu, the murder weapon 'knife' was retrieved by the police. It is also submitted that the co-accused Ajay Yadav @ Pappu has been granted bail by this Court on 15.12.2022 vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49393 of 2021. In the same manner, co-accused Deepak @ Deepu has also been granted bail by this Court on 10.2.2022 vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48982 of 2021. It is also submitted that the prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstances is not complete to connect the present applicant with the commission of

¶9

the crime of murder. She is languishing in jail since 13.6.2021 and in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶10

On the other hand, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute this fact that co-accused of this case have already been granted bail by this Court.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-

¶13

"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶14

In Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :

¶15

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

¶16

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great

¶17

hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.

¶18

23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."

¶19

Hence, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, grant of bail to other co-accused persons, the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases as well as in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant Kavita Bind involved in Case Crime No. 267 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 34, 120-B IPC, P.S. Rohaniya, District - Varanasi be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶21

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

¶22

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶23

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

¶24

(iv). The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶25

(v). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶27

It is made clear that the submissions and observations made in this order are only for deciding the bail application. Trial Court while deciding the trial will not be influenced with the same.

¶28

Order Date :- 7.6.2023 safi

¶29

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kavita Bind v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavita Bind 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra @ Veeru Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Paurush Kumar Samadhiya Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Datt @ Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Arun Pratap @ Arun Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Kumar Giri Vs State of U.P.