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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30036

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4433 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Meena Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Prakash,Arsh Bugga Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State while power on behalf of informant has been filed by Mr. Amit Kumar Awasthi, Advocate, which is taken on record.

¶8

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 195 of 2025 under Section 109 (1) B.N.S., P.S. Dhaurahra, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶9

As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 03.04.2025 at about 09:00 PM when the applicant alongwith her husband who is co-accused attacked and severely injured the son of informant.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against her which would be evident from the fact that initial medical report indicates only simple injuries upon the injured. It is submitted that neither in the FIR nor in the statement of injured has any specific role been attributed to applicant of having caused any injury upon the son of informant. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and undertakes to co-operate in the investigation, which is still ongoing.

¶11

Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with the submission that the medical report from the King George's Medical University, Lucknow clearly indicates depressed fracture and multiple hemorrhagic contusions on the skull of injured. It is, therefore, submitted that applicant has been clearly nominated in the FIR.

¶12

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has

¶13

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 :-

¶14

"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."

¶15

"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."

¶16

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that general allegations have been imputed against both the accused of having caused injury upon the son of informant. Injury report indicates single grievous injury upon the son of informant. Investigation with regard to the allegation is still ongoing while applicant without previous criminal history is under incarceration since 07.04.2025. The aspect of attacked having taken place on the spur of moment would also require consideration. Applicant is also undertaking to co-operate in the investigation and does not have any previous criminal history.

¶17

Considering the submissions of learned counsel 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.

¶18

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let applicant- Meena Devi involved in the aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence

¶21

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.

¶22

(ii) The applicant 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 him under Section 269 BNS.

¶23

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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, in accordance with law, under Section 209 BNS.

¶24

(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 351 BNSS. 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 in accordance with law.

¶25

Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Satish

¶26

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Devi 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

Dhiru @ Dhirendra and another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home, Lucknow

Mohd. Irshad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Deena Nath Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shila Jeet Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko and Another

Sani Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Asif Naseem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.