Allowed

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

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2023BAIL/55589/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a bail application filed by a woman accused of murder and related offences. Relying on the Supreme Court in Satendra Kumar Antil and citing jail overcrowding, the Court released the applicant on bail subject to strict conditions regarding evidence tampering and court attendance, concluding a direction to expedite the trial.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions und tampering with evidence and adhering to court schedules.

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

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55589 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Urmila Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rohan Gupta,Ankit Saran,Ram Murti Yadav

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Smt Urmila, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No 98 of 2022 under Sections 302, 394, 504, 506, 120B and 34 IPC, Police Station Bhognipur DistrictKanpur Dehat, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant and three named accused regarding causing of murder of one person by using sabbal , hathoda and lathi-danda .

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there are general allegations against all the accused persons. There is one abraded contusion found on the head of the deceased which might have proved fatal for his life. The second injury is on the stomach. The first injury may be caused by hathoda and all of the weapons alleged in the FIR. It is not clear who caused the aforesaid fatal injury to the deceased out of the 4 persons . The applicant is the woman and entitled to give Court's benefit under Section 437(1) Cr.P.C. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 07.03.2022. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the

¶12

Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 applicant 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 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 him in accordance with law.

¶18

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

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

¶20

The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a

¶21

period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶22

Order Date :- 20.1.2023 Abhishek

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Urmila 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajai Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sumit Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Alias Srinath Alias Tunda Vs State of U.P.

Rohan Vs State of U.P.

Pradyumn Singh Vs State of Up through Sec. Home and 3 Others

Bani Singh @ Dvendra Vs State of U.P.