Allowed

Manish Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Oct 2023BAIL/45077/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding a murder charge, the Court allowed the application citing the applicant's pregnancy, delay in FIR lodging, lack of eye witness, and bail granted to co-accused as factors indicating no likelihood of evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Manisha Devi released on bail in Crime No. 198 of 2022 subject to personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions regarding trial attendance and non-interference with witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:204642

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45077 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Manish Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shivajee Srivastava,Amit Kumar Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Udai Karan Saxena, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Manisha Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 198 of 2022, under Sections 302/34 IPC, registered at P.S. Chakiya, District Chandauli.

¶9

The FIR of the matter was lodged against the applicant, Sukesh her husband and Tetra Devi her mother-in-law on 02.11.2022 by Guddu with the allegation that on 24.10.2022 when his wife was alone in the house co-accused Sukesh had slept there. On the next day, the applicant and Tetra Devi came there and took him from the house. Thereafter on 25/26.10.2022 all the three accused persons came there and murdered his wife Smt. Soni. His grandmother Shama Devi on getting some noise saw the accused persons running away.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that there is no eye witness to the murder. The implication of the applicant is on the basis of suspicion only. It is argued that the first informant is not an eye witness of the incident. The FIR has been lodged after a delay of about six days. It is argued that Shama Devi the grandmother of the informant did not disclose the said fact to anyone and was not interrogated immediately. She was

¶11

interrogated after sometime. It is argued that the applicant is a lady and while placing para 23 of the affidavit it is argued that the applicant has given birth a female child in March, 2023 after which she surrendered before the Court and the said child is with the applicant in jail. It is further argued that co-accused Tetra Devi and Sukesh Kumar Gond have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 13.04.2023 and 05.10.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 11148 of 2023 (Tetra Devi Vs. State of U.P.) and 21909 of 2023 (Sukesh Kumar Gond Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the orders are annexed as annexure 10 to the affidavit. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 27 of the affidavit and is in jail since 01.07.2022.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the FIR and there are allegations against her but could not dispute the fact that the applicant has a child born in March, 2023 who is in jail with her. Further the fact that co-accused Tetra Devi and Sukesh Kumar Gond have been granted bail have also not been disputed.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is a lady who is in jail with a seven months old girl child. The FIR has been lodged after a delay of about six days. Co-accused Tetra Devi and Sukesh Kumar Gond have been granted bail.

¶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 Manisha 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 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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

The bail application is allowed .

¶24

Order Date :- 27.10.2023 M. ARIF

¶25

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manish Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish 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

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kasim Vs State of U.P.

Vikash Babu @ Vikash Vs State of U.P.

Mahtab Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brahmpal Vs State of U.P.

Kushagra Singh Vs State of U.P. .and Another