Allahabad High Court
Mallo Dev vs State Of U.P. on 5 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:19210
Court No. - 91
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42225 of 2023
Applicant :- Mallo Dev
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard Sri Sanjay Tiwari, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 34 of 2023, under Section 304 of I.P.C., Police Station Alinagar, District Chandauli with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23184 of 2023.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant is a lady and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that in the incident the applicant has been attributed the role of hitting to the injured-Mintoo Kumar Chauhan with a piece of brick. It is further submitted that main role has been assigned to co-accused Ram Nagina @ Chhotu @ Khesari that he assaulted the injured on his head with iron rod and subsequent to the bail rejection of the applicant, co-accused Ram Nagina @ Chhotu @ Khesari, has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35677 of 2023. It is also submitted that co-accused Ashok Kumar who was attributed similar role as of the applicant has also been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31244 of 2023. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 04.02.2023 and there is no substantial progress in the trial. Applicant has no criminal history and that in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-
"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Mallo Devi in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.
(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(4). 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
Order Date :- 5.2.2024
PS
