Allowed

Sheela Devi and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2024/528/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed by Sheela Devi, Phoolmati, and Kusum, the Allahabad High Court allowed the grant of bail, extending the facility subject to standard conditions including furnishing a bond, ensuring non-tampering with witnesses, and cooperating in the trial.

What did the court decide?

The accused applicants Sheela Devi, Phoolmati, and Kusum were released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties.

Sheela Devi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4617

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 528 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sheela Devi And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Pathak,Shobha Rajpoot,Vijay Prakash Tripathi,Vivek Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary and the charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted on 5.12.2023.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicants- Sheela Devi, Phoolmati and Kusum for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 423 of 2023, under Sections 379, 411, 413 I.P.C., Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh, during trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the accused-applicants while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The applicants were not named in the FIR. However, after two days of the incident, the applicants are shown to have been arrested and Rs. 40,000/- along with some jewellery is shown to have been recovered from the possession of applicants.

¶12

It is vehemently submitted that the only evidence available against the applicants is their confessional statement and the alleged recovery of Rs. 40,000/- along with some jewellery items and the jewellery items are also claimed to have been identified by the victims, however, without there being any specific identification mark, it was not at all possible for the victims of the crime to have identified the jewellery and significantly, the identity of the applicants as the assailants have not been established by any mode including Test Identification Parade. Therefore, it cannot be presumed at this stage that the

¶13

applicants were the real culprits.

¶14

It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Prabhu Prasad, Ramesh and Sonu Kumar have been granted bail by this Court vide its order dated 09.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 239 of 2024. The applicants are languishing in jail in this case since 10.11.2023 without any criminal history and all the alleged offences against the applicants are triable by Magistrate. Charge sheet in this case has already been filed and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail they may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for bail of the applicant, but could not confront the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicants.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that learned counsel for the applicants has doubted the identification of the jewellery items which are shown to have been identified by the victims. The submission made on behalf of the applicants is to the tune that by any mode of identification, the identity of the applicants has not been established. Identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Prabhu Prasad, Ramesh and Sonu Kumar have already been granted bail by this Court. The applicants are in jail in this case since 10.11.2023. Charge sheet in the matter has already been filed. Presence of the applicants could be secured before the trial court by placing any adequate conditions.

¶17

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the facility of bail may be extended to the applicants. Thus, the bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let the accused/applicants- Sheela Devi, Phoolmati and Kusum involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or

¶22

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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

Order Date :- 17.1.2024 Gurpreet Singh

¶27

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sheela Devi and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela Devi and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chand Babu Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

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

Sukhvinder Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Virendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Sec. Home Lko.

Mohd. Gufran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt.

Tanveer Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Regional Forest Officer Forest Deptt. Sharda Nagar Division South Kheri