[ad_1]
Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Devanti Devi vs State Of U.P on 6 August, 2025
1
ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.8 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11390/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-05-2025
in CRMBA No. 9564/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad]
DEVANTI DEVI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION)
(IA No. 182465/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 06-08-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR
Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Nimish Arjaria, Adv.
Mr. Mani Ranjan Suman, Adv.
Ms. Shireesha Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Exemption Application is allowed.
2. The petitioner – herein is an aged lady and happens to be the
mother-in-law of the deceased. She has been put to trial with other
co-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 304B, 498A,
323, 504, 506 and 316 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC) and
Sections 3 and 4 respectively of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3.
Signature Not Verified
She prayed for bail before the High Court and the High Court
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
has denied the same.
Date: 2025.08.06
18:15:53 IST
Reason:
4. In such circumstances, the petitioner is here before this
Court with the present petition.
2
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently
submitted that her client is in jail as an under-trial prisoner
past 4 years. Till this date, the prosecution has been able to
examine only 2 witnesses. He further pointed out that the
prosecution intends to examine as many as 27 witnesses.
6. It has been the consistent stand of this Court that if the
trial has commenced and the prosecution witnesses are being
examined, the Court should remain loath in considering the plea of
bail. At the same time, what has been pointed out by the learned
counsel also should not be ignored. If it has been almost 4 years
since the petitioner was arrested and the trial court has been able
to examine only 2 witnesses out of 27 witnesses, then definitely
it is a matter of concern
7. In such circumstances, referred to above, we direct the Trial
Court that if need be, the prosecution witnesses be examined on
day-to-day basis and complete the trial within a period of 6 months
from today with judgment.
8. This Court has repeatedly reminded the Trial Courts that do
not multiply the witnesses. It is a futile exercise to call
multiple witnesses only to establish one particular factum.
9. It is the quality of the evidence that is important and not
the quantity of the evidence.
10. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed
of.
11. Pending applications, if any, also st(and disposed of.
(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
[ad_2]
Source link