Allowed

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

Allahabad HC6 May 2024BAIL/4635/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to a widow applicant languishing in jail since December 2022 in a cheating and forgery case. Considering her status as a purchaser and alleged victim, the length of detention, and conditions for cooperation, bail was allowed subject to personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the applicant on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and mandatory court attendance.

Smt. Shyama Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69365

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4635 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Shyama Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Asaghar Mehdi,Manish Mani Tripathi,Siddharth Raj Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶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. 86 of 2008, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barababki.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He further submits that the applicant is purchaser and she herself is victimized as cheat and fraud has been committed with her. He added that in fact the applicant has paid the sale consideration to the vendor, which clearly shows the bonfide of the applicant. He also added that the husband of the present applicant died and she is a widow lady and suffering for her no fault. Adding his argument he submits that the matter pertains to the year, 2008 and the owner of the land, namely, B.B. Sharma never made any complaint and his statement has never been recorded, though he died on 03rd of May, 2020. He also submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and he has also shown other falsity in the prosecution story and submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and she is languishing in jail since 09.12.2022 and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be released on bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and she is purchaser and she is beneficiary and as such, she is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, it transpires that as per the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is widow lady and she is the purchaser and she had paid the sale consideration and she

¶11

herself seems to be the victim of the offence. This Court has also noticed that the chargesheet has been filed and the trial has still not been concluded and the applicant is languishing in ail since 09th of December, 2022 and the applicant has undertaken that in case, she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of the same 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- Smt. Shyama Devi involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on her furnishing a personal bond 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 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;

¶16

(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

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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 :- 15.10.2024 kkv/

¶22

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shyama Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Bhadaiyan Adarsh Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Thr.Manager andANR Vs State of U.P.through Prin.Secy. Institutional Finance and Ors.

Saraswati Devi Vs Managing Director Uco Bank Head Office Salt Lake City Kolkat

Geeta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Urban Development Lko and 2 Others

Smt. Urmila Devi and Ors. Vs State of U.P.through Its Prin. Secy. Basic Edu.Lko.and Ors.

Pawan Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. through Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and Ors.

Anoop Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. through Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and Ors.