Allowed

Shakuntala Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC19 Jun 2024/6045/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad addressed a bail application filed by the wife of the deceased, noting her absence from the FIR. The court observed that the complaint statement and supplementary statement did not implicate the applicant, rendering the confessional statement of the co-accused as having no evidentiary value. Consequently, the prayer for bail was allowed on a personal bond

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount with specific conditions.

Shakuntala Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:43479

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6045 of 2024 Applicant :- Shakuntala Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ripu Daman Shahi,Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

Counter and rejoinder affidavits filed by the learned counsel for the parties are taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Ripu Daman Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.34 of 2023, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 34, 120-B I.P.C. Police Station Mahrajganj Tarai, District Balrampur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and the FIR was lodged by the mother of the deceased. The applicant is wife of the deceased but has not been named in the FIR. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in the supplementary statement recorded of the complainant, there is no whisper regarding the commission of crime and no role has been assigned to the applicant. The police has collected evidence pertaining to CDR of Mobile No.6390773064 which is in the name of Mangal Prasad, Son of Krishna Kumar and police had tried to indicate that the said number was used by the applicant with co-accused Jagannath.

¶10

It is submitted that the co-accused Bhure Yadav @ Phool Chandra and Vijay Kumar have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.8315 of 2023 and 10669 of 2023 respectively. He has further submitted that there is no cogent evidence found against the applicant except the said mobile number which pertains to Mangal Prasad and the police had falsely implicated the applicant. It is further submitted that the name of the applicant has also surfaced in the statement of confessional statement of Nankane @ Jagannath which has no evidentiary value under the Evidence Act. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 20.04.2024.

¶11

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the name of the applicant had surfaced in the statement of Nankane and also in the investigation done by the police and it is found that mobile number of Mangal Prasad was used by the applicant for conversation with the co-accused Nankane @ Jagannath.

¶12

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the argument that the applicant is not named in the FIR, argument that complainant is mother of the deceased has not stated anything adverse against the applicant in her statement recorded under

¶13

section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as in supplementary statement and the argument that confessional statement of co-accused Nankane @ Jagannath has no evidentiary value under Evidence Act, as such the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Let the applicant Shakuntala Devi, be released on bail in the above case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of 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.

¶16

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

¶17

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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.

¶18

(iv) The applicant 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 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is 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 against him in accordance with law.

¶19

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 in this order.

¶20

Order Date :- 19.6.2024 Pks

¶21

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shakuntala Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntala Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Shashi Agarwal and Another vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Shiv Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Amrit Lal @ Amat Lal vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Manjeet Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Manjeet Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Aniket Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow