Sarla Devi vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113443

Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4122 of 2025

Applicant :- Sarla Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Dubey,Santosh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite paty-1.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This third application for bail has been filed by applicant-Sarla Devi seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 189 of 2020 under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Tonika City, DistrictGhaziabad during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 316 of 2020 and 189 of 2020 (State Vs. Salra) under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Tonika City, District-Ghaziabad now pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad.

¶9

The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.02.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44834 of 2020 (Sarla Devi Vs. State of U.P... Thereafter, applicant filed his repeat application for bail, which was registered as Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42993 of 2023 (Sarla Devi Vs. State of U.P.). The aforesaid repeat application for bail filed by applicant also came to be rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2023. For ready reference, the order dated 11.12.2023 is reproduced herein-under:

¶10

"Heard Mr. Aftab Khan, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶11

This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Sarla Devi seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.494 of 2019, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Tronica City, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial Nos.316 of 2020 and 189 of 2020 (State Vs. Sarla) under Section 302 IPC, now pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Ghaziabad.

¶12

Perused the record.

¶13

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order 12.02.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.44834 of 2020. For ready reference, the order dated 12.02.2020 is reproduced herein-under :-

¶14

"Heard Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G. P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶15

This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 494 of 2019, under Section 302 of I.P.C., Police Station Tronica City, District Ghaziabad.

¶16

As per F.I.R., which was lodged by brother of the deceased, it has been stated that her sister Poonam was married to the co-accused Shyam Singh, about 12 years ago and the co-accused Shyam Singh used to often ill treat the deceased. On 23.06.2019, in order to kill the deceased, the accused applicant has sprinkled thinner upon her and set her on fire by which, she received 65 % burn injuries and she was admitted in the hospital, where her treatment is going on. In post mortem report, the deceased is found to have died due to septicemic shock as a result of ante mortem infected thermal flame burn injuries involving about 65% of total body surface area.

¶17

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; she is distant relative i.e. bua-sas and not even mother-in-law of the deceased. She has no motive to kill the deceased. No presumption can be made against her. It is further argued that more than six years have elapsed since the marriage of the deceased. It is further argued that the husband of the deceased has already been granted bail by co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 05.02.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3367 of 2020. The accused applicant is a 60 years old lady. Accused is lying in jail since 16.07.2020. She has no criminal history. If she is released on bail, she would not misuse the liberty.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and on the basis of dying declaration of the deceased which has been summoned in original by this Court as its copy was not clear and after reading, it is apparent that the name of the accused applicant has been taken by referring the accused applicant as 'usne' which is being disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant stating that it cannot be presumed that the expression 'usne' was referred to the accused applicant. Learned A.G.A. has prayed that bail

¶19

application of the accused applicant should be rejected.

¶20

I have gone through the said dying declaration and it is apparent that it was the accused applicant who has sprinkled thinner upon the deceased and thrown match-stick upon the deceased, which resulted in her death, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the accused-applicant.

¶21

Accordingly, bail application of the applicant, is rejected.

¶22

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a further period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶23

Furthermore, it is clarified that the observations, if any, made herein above shall be strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶24

Office is directed to seal the dying declaration and return to the lower court after retaining its photostat copy."

¶25

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is in custody since 16.07.2020. As such, she has undergone more than three years and approximately five months of incarceration. Since the applicant is a lady and coupled with the fact that she has gone aforesaid period of incarceration therefore, she is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶26

From the perusal of report of the court below dated 31.10.2023, it is evident that charges were famed against the charge-sheeted accused on 27.08.2021 and four prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined up to this stage. As such, it cannot be said that there is undue delay in the proceedings of trial. Considering the above, this Court finds that the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant is by itself not so sufficient so as to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶27

In view of above, no occasion arises before this Court to enlarge the applicant on bail. The application for bail thus fails and is liable to be rejected.

¶28

It is accordingly rejected.

¶29

Order Date :- 11.12.2023. "

¶30

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2023, applicant approached Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2872 of 2021 (Sarla Devi Vs. State of U.P.), which was also rejected vide order dated 28.07.2021. For ready reference the order dated 28.07.2021 is reproduced herein under:

¶31

"ORDER

¶32

The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.

¶33

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and carefully perusing the material available on record, we are not inclined to enlarge her on bail.

¶34

The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶35

However, having regard to the facts and circumstance of this case, the concerned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of of one year from the date of communication of this order"

¶36

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused and facing trial before court below. However in view of the facts as have now emerged on record, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶37

In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is a lady and she is aged about more than 65 years and is under incarceration for the last 5 years. With reference to the provisions contained in proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C., the learned counsel for applicant submits that in view of aforesaid fact, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial. It is also contended by the learned counsel for applicant that as per the charge-sheet/police report submitted by the Investigating Officer in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. as many as 15 prosecution witnesses have been nominated therein. Upto this stage, the depositions of only 8 prosecution witnesses have been recorded by court below. The trial is of the year 2020. In spite of the fact that a period of almost five years has expired, the trial has not yet been concluded. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that since the trial of applicant is not proceeding at the required pace but at the snail's pace, therefore

¶38

there is no likelihood of the trial getting concluded in near future.

¶39

Attention of the Court was then invited to the order sheet of aforementioned sessions trial and on basis thereof it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant that since the applicant is in custody, therefore, the delay if any in the progress of the trial cannot be attributed to the applicant. From perusal of the order sheet, it is apparent that the trial is not proceedings expeditiously against applicant on the ground that the prosecution witnesses have not appeared. He therefore contends that that prosecution itself is not diligently pursuing the trial. On account of lackadaisical approach of the prosecution in pursuing the trial, the right of applicant to speedy trial as declared by the Apex Court in A. R. Antulay Vs. R. S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225 stands infringed. Since aforesaid fundamental right of accused/applicant stands infringed, therefore, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶40

Furthermore, since the deposition of the prosecution witnesses of fact has been recorded before court below, therefore, in case the applicant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality it cannot be said that applicant shall either terrorize the witnesses or shall hamper the course of trial. As such, no good ground now exists to prolong the custodial arrest of applicant. He therefore submits that no good or justifiable ground has now emerged so as to prolong the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. ,

¶41

Even otherwise, applicant is a woman of clean antecedents having no criminal history to her credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 07.07.2020. As such, she has undergone almost five years of incarceration. The police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, therefore, the entire evidence sought

¶42

to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. In view of above and also the fact that the prosecution witnesses of fact have already deposed before court below, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that no good or justifiable ground now exists on record to prolong the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶43

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has vehemently opposed this third application for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that since applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused, therefore, she does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Considering the nature and gravity of offence, the period of incarceration undergone by applicant is by itself not so sufficient a ground so as to enlarge the applicant on bail. Referring to the first bail rejection order passed by this Court, the learned A.G.A. submits that the Court while rejecting the first bail application of applicant has clearly examined the dying declaration and on basis thereof came to the conclusion that prima-facie the complicity of applicant in the crime in question is established and therefore it rejected the bail application. Though the fact that applicant is a lady and she is undergoing incarceration were also available to the Apex Court, however, the Apex Court did not grant bail to applicant but directed the expeditious conclusion of the trial. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. submits that no new, good or sufficient ground has emerged so as to enlarge the applicant on bail. It is thus contended by the learned A.G.A. that this third application for bail is liable to be rejected.

¶44

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant reiterated his earlier submission urged by him.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant and coupled with the fact that objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this third application for bail as noted herein above could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage, considering the nature and gravity of offence, the role of applicant in the crime in question as noted in the order dated 12.02.2020 passed by this Court, therefore irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of present third application for bail but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court does not find any new, good or sufficient ground so as to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶46

As a result, present third application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

¶47

It is accordingly rejected .

¶48

Order Date :- 15.7.2025 YK

¶49

Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarla Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarla Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Sanjeev Mittal vs State of Up and 3 Others

Ram Chandra Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jitendra Singh Baghel vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Akram and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Faeem Alias Atm vs State of U.P.

Ompal Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others