Allowed

Rukmini Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2023BAIL/37353/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail application filed by two accusedpersons. Rationale included parity with a co-accused already released on bail, overcrowding in jails, and right to speedy trial under Article 21, without forming an opinion on merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Rukmini Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170488

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37353 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rukmini Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Tiwari,Ruchi Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Rukmini Devi and Malti Devi , with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No.174 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 379, 504, 506, 427, 452, 304 I.P.C., Police Station- Bankata, District-Deoria, during pendency of trial.

¶8

The co-accused, Nandlal Kumar Bharti, has been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.39980 of 2020. The prayer for release of the applicant on bail on the ground of parity has been made. The applicant no.1 is languishing in jail since 08.06.2023 and applicant no.2 is languishing in jail since 14.06.2023.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

¶10

Considering the fact that the identically placed co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and for the reasons disclosed in the order of co-accused, the Court is of the view that it is a fit case for bail.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the fact that the identically placed co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that it is a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the

¶13

satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶14

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶15

(iii) The applicants shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(v) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

¶19

Identity and residence proof of the applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

Order Date :- 24.8.2023 SS

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rukmini Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukmini Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Pintu Vs State of U.P.

Akhand Pratap Singh @ Saurabh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kalwa Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Vs State of U.P.