Allowed

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

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2023CRLA/9771/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the Special Judge's order rejecting bail in a robbery case under the SC/ST Act. The court ordered the appellant's release on bail pending trial, citing overcrowding, one-sided investigation, and delay in trial.

What did the court decide?

Appellant Meera Devi released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in equal amounts, subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9771 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Meera Devi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Prakash Chandra Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

List revised. None appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

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 25.11.2022, whereby the Special Judge, (Dacioty Affected Area), Jhansi has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 452 of 2022, under Sections 392,389 IPC and Section 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi.

¶8

There is allegation in the First Information Report that appellant in collusion with other co-accused persons has committed offence of robbery of mobile phone.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of criminal history of nine cases earlier. He is languishing in jail since 7.10.2022. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

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

¶10

liberty of bail.

¶11

In view of above, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 25.11.2022, passed by the Special Judge, (Dacioty Affected Area), Jhansi is, hereby, set aside.

¶12

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; applicant 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, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let appellant, Meera Devi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her 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:

¶14

(i) The appellant 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

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

¶16

(iii) The appellant 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 Cr.P.C.

¶17

(iv) The appellant 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.

¶18

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the

¶19

trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶20

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

¶21

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 appellant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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.

¶22

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 appellant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶23

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.

¶24

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 13.4.2023

¶26

Atul kr. sri.

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera Devi 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

Bramhanand Pal Vs State of U.P.

Kasif Vs State of U.P.

Patara @ Uday Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Gajendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another