Kalawati Devi v. State of U.P

Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49615 of 2023 Applicant :- Kalawati Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijendra Kumar Mishra,Pravesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶1List revised.

¶2Heard Sri Vijendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Virendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶3This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Kalawati Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 642 of 2023, under Sections 302, 120-B IPC, registered at P.S. Pipraich, District Gorakhpur.

¶4The FIR of the matter was lodged on 26.07.2023 by Sudeep Chaurasia against the applicant, Santraj Chaurasia and Neelam Devi alleging therein that his father Harish Chandra Chaurasia has died around 10 years back. He was adopted by Dubai Yadav and Kalawati Devi. After death of his father, his mother Reema Devi worked as labour and earned her livelihood and nurtured him and his sister Lakshmi Chaurasia. The property was being tried to be taken by the accused persons due to which there used to be fight with his mother often. On 26.07.2023 at about 07:00 am when he was going to the coaching to Pipraich, his mother and sister were in the house, the accused persons came there with an intention to commit murder. Santraj Chaurasia assaulted on his mother on her head with favda due to which she died. His sister tried to save her mother but could not save her.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the role of assault is assigned to co-accused Santraj Chaurasia with favda on the deceased Reema Devi. It is argued that no role of assault has been assigned to the applicant in the FIR or even in the statement of Lakshmi Chaurasia. It is argued that the case of applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused Santraj Chaurasia. It is argued that the applicant is a lady and she is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 29 of the affidavit and is in jail since 26.07.2023.

¶6Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶7After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the role of assault on the deceased has been assigned to co-accused Santraj Chaurasia by favda. The applicant is a lady.

¶8The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused Santraj Chaurasia.

¶9Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10Let the applicant Kalawati Devi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court 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 against her in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC.

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶11The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶12The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 22.11.2023 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad