Allowed

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

Allahabad HC28 Apr 2023CRLA/9243/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Special Judge's order rejecting bail. The Court noted the underlying dispute appears civil as no cancellation suit was instituted. Citing jail overcrowding and investigation flaws, the Court granted bail to the appellants subject to standard conditions, clarifying the order did not address merits.

What did the court decide?

Appellants Urmila Devi and Shalini released on personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions regarding not tampering with evidence, not intimidating witnesses, and appearing in court.

Urmila Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9243 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Urmila Devi And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ansar Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jitendra Kumar,Purushottam Dixit

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ansar Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellants; learned A.G.A for opposite party no.1; Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 23.09.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Etawah has rejected the bail application of the appellants moved by them in Case Crime No. 75 of 2022, under Sections- 420 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali, DistrictEtawah.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

There is allegation in the FIR that the appellant no. 1 initially sold the property in favour of Savitri Devi thereafter the appellant no. 1 has sold the same property in favour of her sons hence implication under Section 420 IPC has been made. The appellant no. 1 has criminal history of 7 cases. The appellant no. 2 is the marginal witness of sale deed and she has criminal history of four cases.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that initial sale deed was in favour of the mother of the informant. The subsequent sale deeds are legally void and will not confer any title in the absence of cancellation of the earlier sale deed or declaration of the same as void by the civil court. The appellants are languishing in jail since 01.09.2022. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of SC/ST Act. In case, the appellants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the informant submits that it is clear that the appellants have executed fraudulent sale deed.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the appellant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

After hearing the rival contentions, it is appears that till date the informant has not instituted any suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the sons of appellant no. 1. The dispute appears to be civil in nature.

¶13

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the Court below has not properly considered the facts of the case. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 23.09.2022 is, hereby, set aside.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; appellant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 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, court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let appellants, Urmila Devi and Shalini, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶16

(i) The appellants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(ii) The appellants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶18

(iii) The appellants 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 of

¶19

Cr.P.C.

¶20

(iv) The appellants 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 the trial court.

¶21

(v) The appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶22

(vi) The appellants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the appellants 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 in accordance with law.

¶24

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the appellants, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶25

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶26

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶27

Order Date :- 28.4.2023 Rohit

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Rinku Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Vinay Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gullu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajiv Yadav @ Raju Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mool Chandra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.