Allowed

Sheela Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2024ABAIL/7731/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving allegations of assault and grievous hurt. The court held that since no dangerous weapon was used, only Section 325 IPC was made out, which is bailable. The state failed to demonstrate any risk of flight or witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties and standard conditions of cooperation with investigation.

Sheela Devi vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:149793

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7731 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sheela Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pragyan Kumar Mishra,Sharad Mayank Pandey

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anand Kumar,G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶7

The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Sheela Devi in Case Crime No.103 of 2024, under Sections 149, 323, 504, 326 I.P.C., Police Station - Aurai, District -Bhadohi.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The first information report was lodged with the allegation that the nominated accused persons have assaulted with stick to the injured, as a result of the same, the injured sustained injuries. The injured has suffered injury and the name of the applicant has surfaced in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after ten days in the statement of the injured.

¶10

3A. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to the injury report, which is at page 18 of the supplementary affidavit to submit that the injured has suffered two injuries. Injury no.2 is simple in nature and Injury no.1 was referred to expert opinion. There is no allegation that any weapon is used by the applicant and at the best offence under Section 325 I.P.C. would be made out against the applicant, which is bailable in nature. There is over implication in the present case. The liberty of the applicant is at pearl. It is further submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and have no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. No prima facie case is made out against the applicant. If the applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty and cooperate with the investigation. The applicant has

¶11

apprehension of his arrest by the police any time.

¶12

Learned counsel for the informant has produced the supplementary report in which the injuries have been caused by hard and blunt object and are grievous in nature and loss of vision in the left eye. On the strength of supplementary report, learned counsel for the informant submits that the injuries have been stated by the Doctor to be grievous in nature caused by hard and blunt object.

¶13

Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. submits that the injured has suffered injury in the left eye and there is loss of vision. However, does not dispute the fact that the injuries have been caused by hard and blunt of object and are grievous in nature.

¶14

On a pointed query being made to learned counsel for the applicant as to how Section 326 I.P.C. would be made out against the applicant as no dangerous weapon has been used, learned counsel for the opposite parties could not satisfy the Court with regard to allegation of offence under Section 326 I.P.C.

¶15

It is not shown by learned AGA that the offence in question will have impact on society at large. It is not shown that act causes harm to the society. The accusations arise out of dispute between individuals. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicants for relief of anticipatory bail. Learned AGA has not raised concern that any prejudice would be caused to free, fair and full investigation in the event the applicants are granted anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

Learned Counsel for opposite parties has not placed any criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶17

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicants fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶18

In the present case, it is to be seen that the injured has suffered injury in the left eye and there is loss of vision. The offence of grievous hurt has been defined under Section 320 I.PC., which is extracted hereunder:-

¶19

"320. Grievous hurt .-- The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":

¶20

First.- Emasculation.

¶21

Secondly.- Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.

¶22

Thirdly.- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.

¶23

Fourthly.- Privation of any member or joint.

¶24

Fifthly.- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.

¶25

Sixthly.- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.

¶26

Seventhly.- Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.

¶27

Eighthly.- Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits."

¶28

The allegation as per prosecution case is that the applicant along with the co-accused have assaulted the injured, as a result of the same, the injured sustained injuries. The provision of Section 326 I.P.C. is quoted hereunder:-

¶29

"326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. - Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

¶30

A perusal of the aforesaid section would demonstrate that grievous injuries caused by dangerous weapons are liable for punishment under Section 326 I.P.C. In the present case, as per the admitted case of the opposite parties, the injuries have been caused by hard and blunt object and no dangerous weapon has been used and as such at the best Section 325 I.P.C. would be made out which is bailable.

¶31

In view of the above, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail in respect of offence described in para 1 of the present order. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required.

¶33

(ii) 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 office.

¶34

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court concerned.

¶35

(iv) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned/Investigating Officer about new residential address in writing.

¶36

(v) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself/herself available for interrogation whenever required.

¶37

(vi) The applicant shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police.

¶38

(vii) The applicant shall maintain law and order.

¶39

(viii) The applicant shall at the time of execution of the bond, furnish his address and mobile number to investigating officer, and the court concerned.

¶40

(ix) The applicant shall regularly remain present during the trial, and cooperate with the Court to complete the trial for the above offences.

¶41

(x) Non presence of the applicant or his counsel before the court concerned shall be construed as violation of the present order and the court concerned would be at liberty to take coercive measures in accordance with law.

¶42

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶43

With the directions made above, the anticipatory bail application stands allowed. Order Date :- 11.9.2024 Bhaskar

¶44

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sheela Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela Devi v. State of U.P. 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

Manoj Goyal and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Shweta Agarwal vs State of U.P. and Another

Irfan vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Seema and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Awadhesh Kumar Alias Ajay Kumar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Tiwari and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another