Allahabad High Court
Shanti Devi And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. on 10 April, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53448 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8428 of 2025 Applicant :- Shanti Devi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on records.
3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicants – Shanti Devi, Mamta Devi and Sunita Devi seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 4344 of 2010 (State vs. Viresh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. C-2 of 2004, under Sections 498-A, 304-B & 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bharthana, District Etawah.
4. A report regarding the status of trial was called by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.03.2025. Office has placed on record through its report dated 09.04.2025, a report of the trial court, a perusal of which goes to show that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah vide a report dated 08.04.2025 has stated about the status of the trial. Perused the same.
5. The facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged on 27.03.2004 against the applicant and 8 other persons by Sughar Singh on the basis of an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The matter was investigated after which a final report was submitted by the police. The informant Sughar Singh then appears to have moved a protest petition on which vide order dated 07.09.2007 the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Etawah summoned the applicants and other accused persons for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Against the said order dated 07.09.2007, the applicants and others filed an application under 482 Cr.P.C. petition before this Court being Crl. Misc Application U/s 482 No. 26244 of 2008 (Viresh and others Vs. State of U.P.) which was disposed of vide order dated 29.09.2008, copy of the order is annexed as annexure 7 to the affidavit. The informant also challenged the proceedings of the said case and the orders dated 25.05.2009 and 26.05.2009 passed by the trial court against him in 482 petition being Crl. Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 14321 of 2009 (Sughar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) in which vide order dated 24.06.2009 operation of the said orders and the proceedings under Section 182 Cr.P.C. were stayed. Subsequently, the said petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2021 when no one had appeared and observations made that it appears to have rendered infructuous by efflux of time.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicants are the Jethani of the deceased Smt. Rani Devi. It is submitted that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Rani Devi was solemnized with Viresh in the year, 1997. It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused Dinesh, Shivraj and Ashok have been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 423 of 2025 (Dinesh and 2 others Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order is annexed as annexure 11 to the affidavit. It is submitted that Viresh, the husband of the deceased Smt. Rani, has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3576 of 2025, photocopy of the order has been placed before this Court which is taken on record. It is further submitted that the applicants are ladies and are entitled to get benefit of Section 480 B.N.S.S., 2023. The applicants have no criminal history as stated in para 31 of the affidavit and are in jail since 28.01.2025.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.
8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the incident is of the year 2004. The FIR was lodged on the basis of an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The matter was investigated after which a final report was submitted by the police. Co-accused Dinesh, Shivraj, Ashok and Viresh have been granted bail. The applicants are ladies.
9. Looking 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.
10. Let the applicants- Shanti Devi, Mamta Devi and Sunita 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 applicants will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) The applicants 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 applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(v) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against them 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 applicants.
11. The 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.
12. The bail application is allowed.
13. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Order Date :- 10.4.2025
Manoj