Indu Devi vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 1791 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 72
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7089 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Indu Devi
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Shravan Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saurabh Kumar Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record.

Heard Sri Shravan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Indu Devi under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 175 of 2021, for offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308, 304 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Didarganj, District- Azamgarh during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Azamgarh vide order dated 20.01.2022.

Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 04.12.2021 has been lodged by daughter-in-law of the deceased against the applicant and other 3 named persons, under Sections 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. about two hours of the incident stating therein that on 3.12.2021, earlier in the night, the husband of first informant was plowing his field with a rented tractor, then unknowingly the ram (medh) got dismantled by the tractor in the field. Then, on 04.12.2021 at about 09.00 A.M., the husband of the first informant got repaired the ram (medh). On the same day at about 06:30 P.M., the applicant and other co-accused came to the door of the first informant's house and started abusing her and her family members and committed marpit by lathi and danda, kicks and fits of the daughter of the first informant, husband, father-in-law and son of the first informant and threatened to them for dire consequences.

After lodging of the first information report, medical examination of the injured persons namely Vijayee, Rajesh, Shubham and Lautan was conducted at PHC Martinganj on 04.12.2020 at 10:05 P.M., 10:20 P.M., 10:35 P.M., and 09:50 P.M. respectively. After death of the injured Vijayee on 05.12.2021, inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 05.12.2021 at 02:00 P.M., at mortuary of District Hospital. Postmortem of the deceased was also conducted on 05.12.2021 at 04:40 P.M. Cause of death is coma ante-mortem head injury. As per postmortem report, one abraded contusion on left side; contusion on the side of head; lacerated wound on the left side of the head were found on the body of the deceased. After recording the statement of the injured witnesses and prosecution witnesses, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet on 04.02.2022 against the applicant and other three co-accused persons. The applicant was arrested on 06.12.2021.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that as per allegations of first information report as well as statement of injured persons, general role of marpit has been assigned to the applicant and other named co-accused persons. It is further submitted that no specific role has been attributed to the applicant. It is next argued that on the side of the applicant, 4 persons including the applicant were sustained injuries in the incident and the injuries are related to lacerated wound, contusion and abrasion and the medical examination of the applicant's side was conducted on 06.12.2021 in the presence of Police officials. It is further submitted that one first information report has been lodged by the applicant's side being Case Crime No. 176 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. against the husband of the first informant and other persons. It is further submitted that prosecution has not explained the injuries of the injured persons of the applicant's side. It is further submitted that no incriminating articles has been recovered from the possession of the applicant.

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

(a) General role of marpit has been assigned to the applicant;

(b) No specific role has been attributed to the applicant;

(c) Four persons including the applicant were sustained injuries in the incident;

(d) A cross F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 176 of 2021 has been lodged by the applicant's side against the husband of the first informant and other persons;

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, her role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

Let applicant, Indu Devi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) 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 the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel.

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

Order Date :- 29.4.2022

Ishan