Allowed

Chinta Devi @ Leelawati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2024/2958/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by Chinta Devi @ Leelawati under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, setting aside the trial court's order rejecting her bail plea. The court granted bail subject to conditions including furnishing security and refraining from tampering with witnesses, noting a similar co-accused had already been granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside, pending applications disposed off, and the appellant released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties.

Chinta Devi @ Leelawati Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71587

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2958 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Chinta Devi @ Leelawati Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dinesh Chandra,Pranvesh Awasthi,Rohit Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Abhinav Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, is taken on record.

¶7

No one is present for the informant/complainant, while the name of Shri Abhinav Srivastava is printed in the cause list on behalf of him. No request for adjournment has either been moved on behalf of the complainant/informant to adjourn the case.Â Learned A.G.A. for the State is available.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The instant criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the S.C./S.T. Act has been filed by the appellant-Â Chinta Devi @ Leelawati for grant of bail and for setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 07.08.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad in Computer Registration No.1615 of 2024 (Chinta Devi @ Leelawati vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.233 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C. and 3(2)v of S.C./S.T. Act, lodged at Police Station Raunahi, District Ayodhya/Faizabad, during trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant, while pressing the appeal, submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence, as claimed by the prosecution and only on account of relationship of the appellant with rest of the accused persons she has been arrayed as an accused in the FIR along with two other ladies of the house. It is vehemently submitted that in presence of four male members of the family it may not be inferred that the lady members of the house would participate in the 'maar-peet'. It is further submitted that in the incident one Arjun is shown to have died of the injuries sustained by him on his head, while Ram Autar-

¶11

injured has sustained six injuries of simple nature and Kalawati has also sustained only one visible injury and swelling and general role of assault has been assigned to all the accused persons named in the FIR by the injured persons as well as by the eye-witness, however, no recovery of any weapon is shown to have been effected either from possession of the appellant or on her pointing. It is further submitted that the manner in which the incident had occurred would itself project that there was no time to form an opinion/intention.

¶12

It is next submitted that the appellant is a lady. She is languishing in jail in this case since 27.07.2024. She is not having any previous criminal record to her credit. Charge-sheet in this case has also been filed and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, she may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Identically placed coaccused person, namely, Isha has been granted the facility of bail by this Court, vide order dated 25.09.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2763 of 2024.

¶13

Learned AGA, however, opposes the bail plea of the appellant on the ground that the witnesses, including injured witnesses, have stated specifically with regard to participation of the appellant as well as other family members of the house in the incident.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, it is reflected that in the FIR as well as in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, including injured Ram Autar and Kalwati, four male members and three female members of the same family, including the appellant, are shown to have assaulted the three members of the family of the informant. Deceased- Arjun, Ram Autar and Kalawati injured persons are shown to have sustained injuries. The deceased has sustained only one injury on his head which appears to be fatal, injured Ram Autar has sustained six injuries of the nature of lacerated wounds and abrasions on different part of his body as well as Kalawati has sustained one lacerated wound and swelling on non-vital parts of her body. The defence of the appellants appears to be that the injuries sustained by the deceased and injured persons are not commensurate with the number of assailants and the facts disclosed in the FIR as well as statements of eye-witnesses and injured witnesses. It further appears to the the defence of the appellant that in presence of male members of the family, female members are not expected to participate in the 'maar-peet' and also that no recovery of any kind has been effected either from possession of the appellant or on her pointing and the recovery of weapon is shown to have been effected from pointing of four male members of the

¶15

family. She is in jail in the present case since 27.07.2024. She is not having any previous criminal record to her credit. Identically placed co-accused person, namely, Isha has already been granted the facility of bail by this Court. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, a case for bail is emerging in favour of the appellant, however, the learned trial court appears to have committed an illegality, while rejecting the plea of bail of the appellant.

¶16

In result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial court is set-aside. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

¶17

Let the appellant-Â Chinta Devi @ Leelawati, Â involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurising the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶19

(ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶20

(iii) 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.

¶22

Identity, status and residence proof of the appellant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail-appeal and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶24

Order Date :- 23.10.2024 Praveen

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chinta Devi @ Leelawati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinta Devi @ Leelawati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Mishra Vs CBI/EO-1/NEW Delhi

Akash Kumar Ray Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kishor Majumdar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Manoj Verma @ Mannu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Shanti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Anjani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another