Asha Devi vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86122

Court No. - 5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11611 of 2025

Applicant :- Asha Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Chaturvedi,Sanjeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Matter is taken up in the revised call. This is the second bail application.

¶7

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.36 of 2024 at Police Station-Chiluatal, District-Gorakhpur under Sections 304, 314, 120B IPC and Section 34(2) of the National Medical Commission Act. The applicant is in jail since 21.01.2024.

¶8

The first bail application of the applicant were rejected by this Court on 02.07.2024.

¶9

The following arguments made by Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Suchit Tandon, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶10

The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated in the investigation and has joined the trial proceedings. The applicant never tampered with the evidence nor influenced any witness.

¶11

The applicant never adopted any dilatory tactics or impeded the process of the trial.

¶12

3.The status report sent by the trial court records that all the prosecution evidence has been completed. The stage is set for proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C./defence evidence.

¶13

There is no possibility of the applicant influencing the said material witnesses or tampering with the evidence.

¶14

Continued incarceration of the applicant will disable him from crafting an effective defence strategy and prevent him from gathering evidence in his support thereof and tendering the same before the learned trial court to establish his innocence. Further detention of the applicant will be detrimental to his defence in the trial and inconsistent with the norms of fairness in criminal processual jurisprudence.

¶15

This Court in Prabhat Gangwar v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2586 of 2023) while enlarging an accused on bail examined the right of accused for preparing his defence and gathering evidence to tender the same before the learned trial court for establishing his innocence held:

¶16

"Nature and gravity of the offence is certainly liable to be considered by the court while considering grant of bail. The Court has also to factor the likelihood of whether the

¶17

accused committed the offence while deciding a bail application. The court also has to determine in the facts of the case whether the accused needs to be set at liberty to frame his defence and gather evidence to refute the prosecution case and establish his innocence. The bail court has to examine whether continued incarceration would disable the accused from tendering an effective defence of his case. This is a demand of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence.

¶18

Setting an accused at liberty at large on this ground cannot be applied mechanically in all cases. The issue has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case while doing so. All relevant facts including the evidences in the record, the conduct of the accused during the investigation as well as trial have to be adverted to before a decision is made in this regard."

¶19

Considering the aforesaid parameters in light of the above facts of this case, I am of the opinion that Prabhat Gangwar (supra) is applicable to the facts of this case.

¶20

The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶21

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses,

¶22

tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶23

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶24

Let the applicant-Asha Devi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶25

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶26

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶27

The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023).

¶28

The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties, or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.

¶29

It is directed that in case any accused person who has been enlarged on bail does not cooperate in the trial or adopts dilatory tactics, the learned trial court shall record a

¶30

finding to this effect and cancel the bail without recourse to this Court.

¶31

Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Ashish Tripathi

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Asha Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

Asha Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Johari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akshat Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rahul and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Prabhu vs State of U.P.

Suresh Chandra @ Suresh Godiya and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Nawazish vs State of U.P.