Suneeta vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko
2025 Latest Caselaw 5298 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Suneeta vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko on 20 February, 2025

Author: Sangeeta Chandra

Bench: Sangeeta Chandra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11053-DB
 
Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3654 of 2024
 
Appellant :- Suneeta
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Prakash Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Avinash Dhar,Shourya Parmar,Shourya
 
and 
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3696 of 2024
 
Appellant :- Smt. Koyla And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Prakash Singh,Vivek Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shourya Parmar
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
 

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

1. Since these two appeals filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "N.I.A. Act") arise out of the same Case Crime No.146 of 2024, as such, both the appeals are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

2. Heard Sri Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Umesh Chandra Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record.

3. The instant criminal appeals under Section 21(4) of the N.I.A. Act have been filed by the appellants, namely, Suneeta as well as Smt. Koyla and Shanti Devi @ Tara challenging the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge N.I.A./ IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in First Bail Applications No.7966 of 2024 titled Suneeta vs. State of U.P. and 7967 of 2024 titled Shanti Devi @ Tara and another vs. State of U.P, arising out of Case Crime No.146 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 395, 307, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, Police Station Umari Begumganj, District Gonda, whereby the bail applications filed by the appellants were rejected.

4. The facts giving rise to the instant appeals are that the first informant, Mehilal Paswan S/o Hardeen, lodged an F.I.R. stating therein that he had an enmity with one Santosh Paswan S/o Gayadeen regarding some land. The informant is a resident of Umari Begumganj, Gonda. Due to the aforesaid enmity, on 21.05.2024, at about 08:30 PM, when the informant was present along with his family members, the accused, Santosh Paswan along with his companions Ram Lagan, Ram Karan, Ritesh, and their other relatives, arrived on 5-6 motorcycles and one Bolero. They were armed with sharp-edged weapons, hockey, danda and hand grenades. The said assailants rushed to the informant?s house, attacked on it, demolished a wall, and destroyed all the items kept inside his house. The accused, with an intention to kill, also threw a grenade at the informant?s son, Mithu. The informant?s family members started shivering in fear and ran to save their lives. The accused persons surrounded the informant?s son and started beating him brutally, due to which, he fainted and fell on the ground. The accused also assaulted the informant?s wife, Gudiya and sister, Devi, causing serious injuries to them. All the assailants, with a common intention, aimed to kill the entire family of the informant. On hearing the commotion, villagers rushed to the scene of occurrence. One of the assailants threw a hand grenade. Upon seeing the villagers and believing that the informant?s son had died, the assailants fled away from the scene of occurrence. They destroyed everything in the informant?s house. Thereafter, a co-villager, Avadhram, took the informant?s son and wife to the hospital by ambulance, accompanied by Mithu?s wife. The remnants of the grenade were scattered all over the informant?s house.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that the only ground necessitating the present appeals to be filed on behalf of the appellants, namely, Suneeta, Smt. Koyla, and Shanti Devi @ Tara, is that the present appellants are women whose names were not specifically mentioned in the first information report. However, the first informant and the injured have referred to the presence of the wives of various male co-accused persons, in their statements.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants, thus, submits that as the appellants were not named in the first information report and no specific role was assigned to them, therefore, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail as they are women also. He has also submitted that the case of the present accused-appellants is distinguishable from that of the other male assailants, who are stated to be hardened criminals.

7. His next submission is that because of incarceration of appellant, Suneeta in Criminal appeal No.3654 of 2024 in jail, her male child aged about 2 years is also residing with her in jail. Therefore also, she is enlarged on bail.

8. His further submission is that the appellants, who are women, have been languishing in jail since 26.09.2024 and have no previous criminal history. Therefore, the accused-appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail because the fact that they are women and have no previous criminal history, which was not considered in its proper perspective by the learned trial court while rejecting their bail applications by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 25.10.2024.

9. His next submission is that, in case, the appellants are enlarged on bail, they shall not indulge in any cognizable offence in respect of the first informant, injured persons and their family members, and they shall attend the trial court concerned as and when directed by the learned trial court concerned.

10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants. However, they have admitted the fact that the accused-appellants are women and they have no previous criminal history.

11. Their further submission with vehemence is that the male assailants are named in the first information report, who have committed this offence in a brutal manner. However, they have been unable to dispute the fact that the case of the present accused-appellants is distinguishable from that of the other male assailants.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and upon perusal of record, we find that while rejecting the bail applications moved by the present accused-appellants, the learned trial court has placed reliance upon the injuries sustained by the injured persons as also the recovery of various alleged weapons of assault and other materials including a small danda and other things. The present case of the present accused-appellants are distinguishable from the other mail assailants, who were not only named in the first information report but they are stated to be habitual offenders. Having regard to the fact that the accused-appellants are women, who are languishing in jail since 26.09.2024, they have no previous criminal history and they were not named in the first information report, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 is untenable and deserves to be set aside.

13. In view of the aforesaid overall facts, the present appeals deserve to be allowed and are, accordingly, allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge N.I.A./ IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in First Bail Applications No.7966 of 2024 and 7967 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.146 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 395, 307, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, Police Station Umari Begumganj, District Gonda, is hereby set-aside.

14. Let the appellants, namely, Suneeta, Smt. Koyla and Shanti Devi @ Tara be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number with the following conditions:-

(i) The appellants shall furnish the personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

(ii) The appellants shall cooperate with the ongoing trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail during the pendency of these proceedings.

(iii) For any violation of non-cooperation in the proceedings or otherwise acting in a manner subversive of law, it shall be open to the prosecution to make an appropriate application before the Special Court for cancellation of bail if the situation so warrants.

(iv) The appellants shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of the case. The appellants shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial.

15. Here, it is made clear that observations made in this order shall not affect the trial, in any manner.

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) (Sangeeta Chandra, J.)

Order Date :- 20.2.2025

cks/-