Allowed

Vimla Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2023BAIL/58765/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed by three applicants (Vimla Devi and others) in a criminal trial for offences including murder. The court accepted arguments regarding false implication and lack of evidence, granting bail subject to nine strict conditions to ensure attendance and prevent evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail upon personal bond and two heavy sureties each subject to strict conditions regarding attendance and conduct during trial.

Vimla Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58765 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vimla Devi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants Vimla Devi, Chinta Devi and Sumitra Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 156 of 2022, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 352, 323 IPC, P.S. Tarkulwa, District Deoria.

¶7

The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. According to post mortem examination report the cause of death is shock and hoemorrage due to antimortem head and chest injuries, there are nine injuries. But no specific role has been assigned to the applicants. In the present case old enmity between the parties is established. The deceased was 65 years and habitual drinker. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicants and there is no eye witness account of the alleged incident. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicants have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicants that they are ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make themselves available before the court whenever required and are also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon them. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are languishing in jail since 27.06.2022 having no criminal history.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all 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 applicants may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Let the applicants- Vimla Devi, Chinta Devi and Sumitra Devi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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:-

¶11

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

¶12

ii) The applicants 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.

¶13

(iii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶14

(iv) The applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶15

(V) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC.

¶16

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try

¶17

to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicants.

¶18

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 applicants to prison.

¶19

The bail application is allowed .

¶20

Order Date :- 16.3.2023

¶21

RPD

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vimla Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimla Devi and 2 Others 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

Aftab Alam Vs State of U.P.

Imran Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amir Vs State of U.P.

Rashid Vs State of U.P.

Bijnesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others