Smt. Karmdani vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1134

Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 89 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Karmdani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release her on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 76 of 2024, under sections 308, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, P.S.-Mankapur District - Gonda.

¶6

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that in fact the incident occurred due to sudden provocation and within spur of moment, the parties scuffled with each other and the injured has received injures though, there was no intention to commit any offence. He also submits that the CT-scan report is apparent that there is no significant abnormality noted in brain whereas, fracture of right zygomatic arch is there. He next added that the applicant is a women and has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 17 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and she is languishing in jail since 12.12.2024 and she undertakes that in case, she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶7

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, she is not entitled for any relief.

¶8

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.12.2024; the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 17 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application; prima facie, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect her with the offence coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Considering the submissions of learned counsels 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.

¶10

Let the applicant- Smt. Karmdani involved in the aforementioned 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:-

¶11

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶12

(2) 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. She 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 her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶13

(3) 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.; and

¶14

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

¶15

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶16

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.1.2025/Mayank

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Karmdani v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Karmdani v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Ritesh Lodhi @ Bablu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Sushimta Shahi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jamuna Prasad Gangwar and 12 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Lko and 2 Others

Mohd. Zuber vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Himanshu Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.