Smt Guddo Devi v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47167 of 2023 Applicant :- Smt Guddo Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Kishan,Vipin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sushil Kumar Mishra, counsel for the informant. Perused the record.

¶2The instant bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 318 of 2023, under Sections 313, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station-Soron, District-Kasganj during pendency of the trial.

¶3Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the injury report the informant sustained two injuries. The injury no.1 was found simple in nature. The injury no.2 was referred for ultrasound. The ultrasound was conducted on 7.6.2023 and 9.6.2023. The injury no.2 was found simple in nature. As per sonography report fetus was seen normal. Subsequently on 11.6.2023 the victim suffered miscarriage. It is contended that the miscarriage is not on account of injury sustained by the victim on 7.6.2023. Further identically placed co-accused Mahipal has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 7.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.47501 of 2023. The applicant claims parity. The applicant does not have any criminal history. The applicant is a lady and is in jail since 19.9.2023. In case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶5Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that in the two medical reports dated 7.6.2023 and 9.6.2023, no abnormality was seen. As such, the miscarriage cannot be linked with the present offence. Further, identically co-accused Mahipal has been granted bail by this Court. At this stage there is no substantive evidence against the applicant. Further the applicant is a lady and has presently remained confined for more than two months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶6Let the applicant, Smt Guddo Devi involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶7In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 2.12.2023 S.S. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad