Smt. Gudiya Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home, Civil Sectt, Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:16634

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1569 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Gudiya Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home, Civil Sectt, Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Srivastava,Shailendra Singh Rajawat,Vaibhav Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukul Kumar Sharma

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant.

¶8

In the FIR it is alleged that on 21.09.2022 at about 1:00 am Shayam Bihari aged about 50 years has been done to death by slitting his throat by unknown persons.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that only on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused as well as false recovery of khukhri (weapon of assault) to which there is no independent witness, the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness to the incident. The applicant is none other than the daughter-in-law of the deceased. The applicant is a lady. The applicant has minor children.

¶10

It has been further submitted that the complainant has been examined before the trial court who has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile.

¶11

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.09.2022 without having any criminal history. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of

¶12

bail.

¶13

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact that except the confessional statement of the co-accused persons as well as recovery of weapon of assault from the joint pointing out of the accused persons, there is no material against the applicant.

¶14

On due consideration to the fact that the applicant is a lady and has minor child; PW-1 has been declared hostile; there is no chance of tampering evidence; the case is of circumstantial evidence, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.09.2022 without having any criminal history and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant, Smt. Gudiya Devi, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 412/2022, under Sections 302 IPC, Police Station - Mahmudabad, District - Sitapur, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

(iii) The applicant 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iv) 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

¶21

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.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails 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.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.2.2024

¶25

R.C.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Gudiya Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home, Civil Sectt, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gudiya Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home, Civil Sectt, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Sandeep Sahu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Nirmal Das @ Govind Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lko and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Ramprasad Alias Balla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. U.P. Lko.

Ranjit Chauhan Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others