Allowed

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

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2024/8879/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court discharged an appeal against a bail denial, outlining specific conditions for the applicant's release, including attendance requirements and prohibitions on seeking adjournments, without expressing an opinion on the case merits.

What did the court decide?

Release of Smt. Moni Devi on personal bond and two sureties subject to specific undertakings regarding court attendance and procedural conduct.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1869

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8879 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Moni Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Alok Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.D. Bhutt, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

¶7

2. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge her on bail in Case Crime No. 72 of 2020 under sections 302, 436, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Barasagwar, District Unnao.

¶8

3. This is second bail application of the applicant as the first bail application bearing No. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.5596 of 2023 was dismissed as no pressed by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2023.

¶9

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR. However, in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Km. Reena and Smt. Renu, it has come that co-accused Devi Prasad was seen by them going towards the house of the applicant and thereafter in the confessional statement of co-accused Devi Prasad, the name of the applicant has come into light and he has confessed that deceased had seen him in compromising position with the applicant.That was the reason deceased was done to death as she had raised objection and also pointed out that she would tell the story to her father.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the confessional statement has no evidentiary value under section 25 of the Evidence Act and the co-accused Devi Prasad has been granted bail by this Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.07.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.895 of 2020. He has submitted that there is no other evidence which can be attributed that the applicant has committed offence and the the name of the applicant has come into

¶10

light in the confessional statement of the co-accused Devi Prasad, who has also been granted bail by this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a lady as such the benefit of section 437 Cr.P.C. may be extended to her. The applicant has no criminal history and she is in jail since 16.07.2020.

¶11

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶12

6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the argument that co-accused- Devi Prasad has been granted bail by this Court and the argument that confessional statement has no evidentiary value under section 25 of the Evidence Act, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

7. Let the applicant, namely, Smt. Moni 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 :-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the

¶18

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 her 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 :- 8.1.2024 dk/

¶21

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Moni 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmendra Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Syed Masood Husain vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

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

Siyaram Chaudhary Alias Anjana Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ajay Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Rahul Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.