Allowed

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

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2023BAIL/45471/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan, J. allowed a bail application filed by Geeta Devi and Rahul Kumar. The court held that bail is the rule and jail the exception, noting no material shows a flight risk or interference with justice, and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:217865

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45471 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Geeta Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Pratap Rao Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Jain

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the First Information Report has been lodged against unknown person with the allegation that the informant met applicant at the railway station after she left her home due to fight and the applicant has taken away her child. Subsequently, the applicant was found at the railway station platform from where the child has been recovered. The applicants were found to be sitting at the railway station. The applicants have no criminal history. Applicants are languishing in jail since 28.07.2023 and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶10

Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicants which would disentitle the applicants for Bail.

¶11

It is not the case of the State that the applicants have not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶12

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been

¶13

reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA for the State has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicants.

¶14

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicants fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶16

Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicants are not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicants- Geeta Devi and Rahul Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 126 of 2023, under Sections 363 and 370 I.P.C., Police Station G.R.P., District Gorakhpur 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 the following conditions:-

¶19

i. The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶20

ii. The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶21

iii. The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶22

iv. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶23

v. The applicants 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.

¶24

vi. The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶25

vii. In the event, the applicants changes residential address, the applicants shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶26

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

¶27

Order Date :- 16.11.2023 VMA

¶28

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta Devi and Another 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

Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Muslim Miya Vs State of U.P.

Nandlal Patel Vs State of U.P.

Pooja Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Nasheem @ Balle Kasai Vs State of U.P.

Samseer Vs State of U.P.