Laxmi Devi vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37826 of 2025

¶3

Laxmi Devi

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Birendra Kumar, Vijay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 70

¶7

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Laxmi Devi with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No.856 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 336 (3), 338 and 340(2) B.N.S., Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur, during pendency of trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a lady. She has not executed any forged sale-deed as alleged in the F.I.R.. He submitted that initially the disputed land was purchased by the applicant Laxmi Devi from Devendra Tyagi. Thereafter the disputed land was sold by the accused applicant in favour of Smt. Rekha. It has been stated that different land was said to be executed by the applicant whereas the applicant has purchased the land from Devendra Tyagi which has different chauhaddi that is why the criminal case has been filed by the informant agaisnt the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history to her credit and is languishing in jail since 26.07.2025. It is submitted that co-accused Rohatash has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.07.20-25 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.24341 of 2025. It is submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. It is further argued that the

¶11

BAIL No. 37826 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of accused applicant fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶14

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, she does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; period of detention in jail, keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, bail application is allowed.

¶16

Considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 that :-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶18

(ii) 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.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against her under Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S.

¶20

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order

¶21

BAIL No. 37826 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicants fail 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 174-A I.P.C./209. B.N.S.

¶24

(v) 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./351 B.N.S.S. 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 accordance with law.

¶25

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶26

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶27

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶28

November 10, 2025

¶29

Asha

¶30

Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Laxmi Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi 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

Rahul vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Firasat vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Kumar Kashyap vs State of U.P.

Chedalal Anuragi vs State of U.P.

Valesh vs State of U.P.

Sahrukh vs State of U.P.