Allowed

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

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2023BAIL/44598/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court considered the release of the applicant during trial for allegations under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court observed that the trial had just commenced and permitted the applicant to be released on bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail subject to conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, seeking adjournments with witnesses, or misusing the liberty of bail, with threats of proclamation and arr

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189159

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44598 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Guddi Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vaibhav Shandilya,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Vivek Shandilya, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vaibhav Shandilya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order 13.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37576 of 2020 (Smt. Guddi Devi Versus State of U.P.).

¶9

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Smt. Guddi Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 114 of 2020, under sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Kalpi, District Jalaun.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is in jail since 11.06.2020, the trial in the present matter has just started inasmuch as the statement of P.W.-1 has been recorded for the first time for three pages on 08.08.2023. It is argued while placing the ordersheet of the trial court which is from 21.11.2020 to 08.08.2023 and is annexed as Annexure No. S.A. 1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 10.09.2023 that on 09.09.2021 the trial court had granted time to the prosecution to furnish the list of the witnesses being relied by it, after which from 22.09.2021, the witnesses were being summoned and it was only on 08.08.2023 for the first time P.W.-1 Rampal, the first informant, appeared before the trial court and his evidence was recorded for three pages and then the matter was adjourned. It is argued that the trial in the

¶11

present matter is still to take time as there are other witnesses who are to be examined and as per the list of the prosecution as supplied before the Court 5 witnesses of fact have to be examined, para 10 of the said supplementary affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is further argued while placing para 30 of the affidavit in support of the bail application and annexure no. 12 to the same that Devi Sharan, father-in-law of the deceased, has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.08.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25996 of 2020 (Devi Saran Pal Alias Pappu Versus State of U.P.). It is argued that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. She is a lady and is entitled to get benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Per contra learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶13

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the present bail application is the second bail application of the applicant. The trial of the applicant has just started in which part of the testimony of first informant has been recorded as P.W.-1. The father-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail subsequent to the rejection of the first bail application of the applicant.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Smt. Guddi Devi , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this

¶19

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.

¶20

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶21

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC.

¶22

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶23

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶24

The bail application is allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 3.10.2023 K.K. Maurya

¶26

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Guddi 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

Gokul Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Jai Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Anarkali Vs State of U.P.

Sam Boli @ Shyam Bholi Vs State of U.P.

Yashveer @ Iliyas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rohitash Sharma Vs State of U.P.