Allowed

Leelawati Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Jul 2023BAIL/4963/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Section 306 and 201 IPC concerning alleged suicide, this court observed the significant delay in FIR registration and the absence of evidence to prove the applicant administered poison or disposed of the body. Despite adverse inferences from the deceased's message, the court granted bail, emphasizing that findings do not affect trial merits.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to appear in court, not interfere with witnesses, and refrain from criminal activity.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:152107

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4963 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Leelawati Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Basant Kumar Chauhan,Archana Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Kumar Pandey,Sunita Chauhan,Tanisha Jahangir Monir

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Case called out. None appeared on behalf of the informant. However, learned AGA for the State is present.

¶7

Heard Sri B.K. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 200 of 2022, under Sections 306, 201 IPC, Police Station Rasra, District Ballia during pendency of the trial.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and three others on the basis of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 23.03.2022 and according to the FIR on receiving the information when informant arrived at his native place on 27.02.2022 then he came to know that the dead body of his son has been disposed off by the applicant and other persons. It is further mentioned in the FIR that son of the informant was having love affair with the daughter of the applicant, therefore, applicant along with other accused persons administered some poisoness substance to him and committed his murder.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegation made against the applicant in the FIR appears to be totally false and baseless and incident is said to have taken place on 26.02.2022 and admittedly informant arrived at the village on 27.02.2022 but in spite of that FIR of the present case was lodged on 12.06.2022 through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and even application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 23.03.2022 i.e. after about a month.

¶11

He further submits that except the bald and verbal allegation there is no evidence on record that applicant either administered the poison to the deceased or she disposed off his dead body. He next submits that however during investigation Investigating Officer procured the message of the deceased, which is the part of the case diary, which has been annexed as Annexure-SA-4 of the supplementary affidavit dated 31.05.2023 and from its perusal it appears that he was having love affair with the daughter of the applicant but due to the torture of the applicant, her daughter broke her relationship with the deceased and thereafter deceased committed suicide, therefore, even from the case diary it appears that it is not a case of 302 IPC but case of Section 306 IPC. He next urged, even from the message of deceased abatement of applicant does not reflect.

¶12

He next submits that applicant is lady and in the present matter she is in jail since 23.11.2022 i.e. for more than eight months.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶15

It is a case of circumstantial evidence and FIR of the present case was lodged after several months through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and even application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved almost after a month. Further, except the bald and verbal allegation there is no evidence on record against the applicant which can show that either applicant administered the poison to the deceased or she disposed off his dead body.

¶16

Further, although it appears that deceased in his message made allegation against applicant but even on the basis of the message of deceased it cannot be said at this stage that due to the abatement of applicant deceased committed suicide.

¶17

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant - Leelawati Devi be released on bail in the

¶20

aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶22

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

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶24

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

¶25

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶26

Order Date :- 28.7.2023 AK Pandey

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Leelawati Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leelawati 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bheem Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh @ Akshat Raj Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Seth Vs State of U.P.

Omendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vivek Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanni Panchal Vs State of U.P.