Allahabad High Court
Munni Devi vs State Of U.P. on 13 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138220
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21331 of 2025
Applicant :- Munni Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Ahsan,Bhoodev Yadav,Shivam Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dhirendra Kumar Agrahari,G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Aman Ahsan, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Agrahari, learned counsel for the informant and Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.30 of 2025, under Sections 124(1) B.N.S., Police Station Bhudkuda, District Ghazipur with the prayer to enlarge her on bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have called the injured person near a temple in the night on 1.3.2025 to settle the loan given to her and she is stated to have thrown acid over him causing injuries to him.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The injured person has not been permanently disabled and there is no disability certificate. As such, the applicant is entitled for bail.
6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 1.3.2025 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the injured person had categorically stated that he was subjected to acid attack by the applicant and she is the only accused named in the FIR. It is further argued that it is but evident from the injury report itself that the victim is unable to see from his left eye and is barely able to see from his right eye, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
8. The Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Neeru Yadav Vs State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 has categorically opined that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of CrPC, is of wide amplitude. The court is bestowed with considerable but not unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and not in whimsical manner.
9. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118 it was held by the Supreme Court that the considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out.
10. In State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 it was opined by the Supreme Court that there is no strait jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be. However, certain important factors that are always considered, inter-alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused.
11. In Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280 the Supreme Court was of the opinion that it has to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.
12. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 and Ms. Y versus State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458 it was laid down by the Supreme Court that it is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment.
13. In Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89 the Supreme Court has observed "when the Accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code also and when their presence has been established and it is stated that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by the individual Accused is not significant and/or relevant."
14. In Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 3 SCC 501 it was made clear that the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused. The same view has been vent in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr (2010)14 SCC 496; Ishwarji Mali vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458 and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559.
15. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the statement of the injured person and the injuries sustained by him coupled by the fact that FIR is prompt, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
16. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
17. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
18. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 13.8.2025
Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
