Ruby Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23805

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2198 of 2025 Applicant :- Ruby Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Girish Kumar Pandey,Umesh Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Trivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶6

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.262 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 118(1), 324(4), 351(2) B.N.S of 2023, registered at Police Station Mishrikh, District Sitapur.

¶7

As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 08.08.2024 at about 09.00 P.M. when the applicant along with co-accused is said to have attacked the informant and his family members inflicting serious injuries.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against her which would be evident from the FIR which indicates only general allegations being made without any specific role of applicant being indicated in inflicting any grievance injuries upon the persons indicated. It is submitted that even injury report does not corroborate allegations pertaining to Section 307 IPC since all injuries are indicated to be simple in nature and admittedly no subsequent X-ray has been conducted. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 11.11.2024 without any previous criminal history.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that a perusal of FIR will clearly indicate complicity of applicant in allegations levelled against her. It is however admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶10

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶11

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶12

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶13

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that although section 109 BNS has been imputed against the applicant but there is no specific role attributed to applicant of having caused any grievous injury upon injured. The aspect of injuries being simple in nature and therefore relate-able to Section 109 BNS would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. The applicant is under incarceration since 11.11.2024 without any previous criminal history.

¶14

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶15

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let applicant, Ruby involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/he 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.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(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 313 Cr.P.C. 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 him/her in accordance with law.

¶21

Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Subodh/-

¶22

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

Ruby v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruby v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Mohd. Ikram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Ritesh Kumar Singh Vs Abhay Singh

Gufran Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Zannatunnisha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Pawan Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

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