Allowed

Reeta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2024BAIL/11432/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge bail application in a criminal matter involving offences under BNS 2023. The court found the applicant a fit case for bail as she is a woman, lacks specific allegations, and provided an undertaking to cooperate. Bail allowed with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Publication of bond and release of the applicant on bail with conditions to attend trial and not seek adjournments.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:72796

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11432 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Reeta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Avikshit Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Avikshit Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Diwakar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 23.07.2024 in Case Crime No.0227/2024, under Sections 108, 115 (2), 351 (2) of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station - Behta Gokul, District - Hardoi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in this case as she has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story. Attention of the Court has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the main allegation has been leveled against accused No.1, Ram Dev, and this applicant is the wife of main accused Ram Dev. Except Ram Dev, the main accused, allegations have been leveled against other co-accused Nilesh, Abhishek and Shivam. While concluding the F.I.R. allegation has been leveled against the present applicant also but no overt act of the present applicant has been indicated in the F.I.R. to instigate the victim to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that so as to attract the relevant provisions of abetment to suicide, the specific positive and overt act of the accused must be there and on account of that positive/overt act, the victim might have commit suicide. However, in the present case such allegation has been leveled against main accused Ram Dev and also against Nilesh, Abhishek and Shivam but no allegation has been leveled against the present applicant, who is the married lady of 40 years. She had no enmity of any kind whatsoever with the victim (since deceased) and she was absolutely unaware about the reason as to why the victim has committed suicide. Attention has been drawn towards alleged suicide note of the victim wherein no overt act of the present applicant has been indicated. The present applicant has no previous criminal history.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that present applicant is lady, therefore, she may be enlarged on bail and since charge sheet has been filed, therefore, she undertakes that she shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

Therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue and considering the fact that present applicant is a lady, she remained in judicial custody till completion of the investigation, there is no specific allegation against the applicant and the undertaking of the applicant that she shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of the bail and, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant (Reeta) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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 269 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶15

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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 208 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶16

(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 351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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

¶17

accordance with law.

¶18

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 5.11.2024

¶20

ML/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Reeta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reeta 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anwar and Another vs State of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Ankul Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Swati Kumari Baranwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Reeta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Aman Patel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Crime and Investigation Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Budiram @ Karmraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko and Another