Kamla Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:80544

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10145 of 2024

Applicant :- Kamla Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Kumar Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release her on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 537 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 504, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and she has falsely been implicated in the matter due to ulterior motive. He next added that the applicant is a woman and from the First Information Report, it is evident that the role of exhortation is assigned to the applicant and even the injured has also assigned the role of exhortation to her. He submits that during the course of investigation, it was found that the applicant was not present on spot and therefore, final report is submitted and after the statement of the prosecution witnesses were recorded, the trial court summoned the applicant while invoking the provision under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He next submits that in fact the main role is assigned to one Jainendra Sharma, as he hurled the bomb over the injured who received injuries and the applicant, in fact, had no role but due to anonymity she has been placed in the narration of the First Information Report and has been assigned the role of exhortation. He also submits that the matter pertains to the year, 2014 and prior to the instant First Information Report, there is no previous criminal antecedent. He next submits that applicant has five cases criminal history which has been explained and another case has been explained in the supplementary affidavit that applicant was not involved in committing the offence and she has no role to the same. He also submits that the applicant always ready to cooperate in the trial proceeding and there is no complaint with respect to her absconding at any date before the trial court. He next added that the applicant is in jail since 05.08.2024 and she undertakes that she will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial

¶9

proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Per cantra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that in fact the present applicant is the main conspirator and is an accused and the trial court has rightly summoned the applicant while invoking the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as there are more than sufficient evidence against the applicant and also submits that the applicant has six cases criminal history and, as such, she is not entitled for bail. Learned AGA appearing for the State has also supported the version of the complainant and submits that the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it is apparent that the role of the applicant is assigned of exhortation in the narration of the First Information Report as well as in the statement of the injured; the applicant has been summoned under the provision of Section 319 Cr.P.C.; there is no complaint that the applicant has ever absconded; the applicant has six cases criminal history which has been explained in the bail application as well as in the supplementary affidavit and she is languishing in jail since 5th of August, 2024; the applicant has undertaken that if she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of the same and she always remain present before the trial court as and when required and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Kamla Devi , involved in the aforementioned case crime number, be released on bail, on her furnishing a personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence

¶16

when the witnesses are present in court. She 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

(3) 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.; and

¶18

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.12.2024 kkv/

¶22

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sachin Jaisawal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Phool Chandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 7 Others

Mohammad Firoj Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ubaid Ulla @ Mohd. Ubaid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neeraj Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Neeraj Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.