Allahabad High Court

Judge/FTC-II, Gonda, in S.T. No.164 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.45 of 2018, PS Khargupur, District Gonda, whereby the appellant Savitri Devi and co-accused, Ramdeen, Deenanath are convicted of charges under sections 304/34 and 323/34 and sentenced to 8 years rigorous imprisonment and ₹5,000 fine and for charge under Section 323 IPC for six months simple imprisonment in default stipulation.

3. A report has been submitted by the learned AGA in compliance of order dated 11/09/2025 passed by this Court in the present appeal, wherein it was directed that the learned AGA would file a report regarding the individual care plan drawn up for the inmates' child in pursuance of the judgment of this Court rendered in Smt. Rekha versus State of UP (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.25993 of 2024, dated 2 CRLA No. 3031 of 2024 20/01/2025) and the Government Policy "Surakshit Bachpan".

4. In report submitted by the Senior Superintendent, District Jail, Gonda, dated 10/10/2025, he has stated that two minor children of the convict- appellant, Smt. Savitri Devi, namely, Kumari Srishti, aged 3 years 9 months, and son Aman, aged 1 year 10 months, are residing in prison along with her. According to the convicted Smt. Savitri Devi, her daughters Kumari Shivansi, aged 10 years, and Kumari Manisha, aged 13 years, are residing under the guardianship of her mother-in-law, Smt. Rajkala, wife of Nanku. A personal care scheme has been carved out in regard to convict Smt. Savitri Devi and her children who are residing with her in prison. The convict Smt. Savitri Devi and her children are kept in a separate barrack along with other women prisoners who are held in custody along with their minor children. The daughter of the prisoner, Kumari Srishti, is being provided elementary education by a teacher nominated by the Education Department. The children are duly kept and cared along with their mother, and all facilities under the child development and nourishment scheme are being provided.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a woman and she has been held in jail custody since 12/08/2024, after being convicted in the present case. She was enlarged on bail during the trial, and there is no complaint against her about misuse of the liberty of bail. PW-1, the informant Shiv Kumar, son of the deceased Mangal Prasad, who is not an eyewitness and he has given account of the incident on the basis of information received by his younger brother Vikas, PW4. According to PW-1, the incident occurred on 28/03/2018, at around 12:30 hours in his village. He was harvesting mustard at that time, and his 3 CRLA No. 3031 of 2024 brother informed him that Nanku, Ramdeen, Deenanath, and the wife of Ramdeen had brutally assaulted his father. He, along with his mother and brothers reached the place of the incident, and his father was taken to PHC Khargupur by motorcycle and thereafter he was Maharajganj by a Thelia and thereafter by motorcycle to Khargupur Police Station. He died during treatment. He next submitted that the deceased, Mangal Prasad, died in an attack made by a bull in which he was thrown away and suffered fatal injuries on his chest and other parts of the body. Although this fact has not been admitted by prosecution witnesses bu the wife of the deceased admitted in cross-examination that she received accident death. She received ₹5 lakhs under the Kisan Durghatna Beema Scheme on account of death of her husband. He also submitted that the appellant is a woman. She is lodged in jail custody along with her minor children, and her two minor daughters are residing at home under the guardianship of her mother-in-law. Therefore, proper care of her children makes it desirable that she may be granted liberty of bail in the present appeal. There is no apprehension that she will misuse the liberty of bail. The appeal is new, and it will take considerable time for its hearing and disposal on the merits due to huge backlog. It is also submitted that PW-4 Vikas is the only eyewitness produced by the prosecution, and he has given a general statement that Ramdeen, his wife, Dinanath, and Nanku were assaulting his father. He identified Deenanath in court and stated that the accused were assaulting his father with stick of sagwan (teak) and lathi. When he rushed to save 4 CRLA No. 3031 of 2024 his father, Ramdeen slapped him. Thus, no specific role has been assigned; therefore, a general role has been assigned to the appellant in the offenses. In the postmortem report, 8 external antemortem injuries were found on his person, out of which only two injuries were on the head and other injuries were on non-vital parts of the body. However, no serious and internal injuries were found.

6. Per contra, the learned AGA submitted that as many as eight ribs of the deceased were found fractured, and his liver and lungs were lacerated, which shows the intensity of the assault given to him in the said incident. However, it is not disputed that neither in the FIR nor in the evidence of the witnesses specific role assigned to the appellant, and this fact is also not disputed that the appellant is to take care of her children. Two of her children are lodged with her in jail custody due to the fact that they are less than six years of age.

7. Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that no specific role has been assigned to the appellant and she is a woman, and that she had to take care of four minor children, without expressing any opinion on the merits, and keeping in view the peculiar situation of the appellant and also the fact that she has been held in jail custody for one year four months, and she was held in jail custody during trial for some time before her release from jail by order of this Court, I find it to be a fit case for her release during the pendency of bail.

8. Let the appellant, namely, Savitri Devi, be released on bail in the 5 CRLA No. 3031 of 2024 aforesaid Sessions Trial number during the pendency of appeal upon her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

9. On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bonds, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record.

10. The appellant has undertaken not to indulge into any anti-social activity particularly against the informant and in the event of any such incident it shall be open to the complainant to make an application for cancellation of bail.

11. As regards fine, the appellant is directed to deposit half of the amount of fine with the trial court within two weeks of her release from jail pursuant to present bail order and remaining half of the fine shall be stayed during pendency the appeal.

12. It is also observed that no parity will be permitted to be claimed by the co-accused persons. Order of Appeal List the appeal for hearing in due course. December 8, 2025 KR (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

Judge/FTC-II, Gonda, in S.T. No.164 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.45 of 2018, PS Khargupur, District Gonda, whereby the appellant Savitri Devi and co-accused, Ramdeen, Deenanath are convicted of charges under sections 304/34 and 323/34 and sentenced to 8 years rigorous imprisonment and ₹5,000 fine and for charge under Section 323 IPC for six months simple imprisonment in default stipulation.

3. A report has been submitted by the learned AGA in compliance of order dated 11/09/2025 passed by this Court in the present appeal, wherein it was directed that the learned AGA would file a report regarding the individual care plan drawn up for the inmates' child in pursuance of the judgment of this Court rendered in Smt. Rekha versus State of UP (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.25993 of 2024, dated 2 CRLA No. 3031 of 2024 20/01/2025) and the Government Policy "Surakshit Bachpan".

4. In report submitted by the Senior Superintendent, District Jail, Gonda, dated 10/10/2025, he has stated that two minor children of the convict- appellant, Smt. Savitri Devi, namely, Kumari Srishti, aged 3 years 9 months, and son Aman, aged 1 year 10 months, are residing in prison along with her. According to the convicted Smt. Savitri Devi, her daughters Kumari Shivansi, aged 10 years, and Kumari Manisha, aged 13 years, are residing under the guardianship of her mother-in-law, Smt. Rajkala, wife of Nanku. A personal care scheme has been carved out in regard to convict Smt. Savitri Devi and her children who are residing with her in prison. The convict Smt. Savitri Devi and her children are kept in a separate barrack along with other women prisoners who are held in custody along with their minor children. The daughter of the prisoner, Kumari Srishti, is being provided elementary education by a teacher nominated by the Education Department. The children are duly kept and cared along with their mother, and all facilities under the child development and nourishment scheme are being provided.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a woman and she has been held in jail custody since 12/08/2024, after being convicted in the present case. She was enlarged on bail during the trial, and there is no complaint against her about misuse of the liberty of bail. PW-1, the informant Shiv Kumar, son of the deceased Mangal Prasad, who is not an eyewitness and he has given account of the incident on the basis of information received by his younger brother Vikas, PW4. According to PW-1, the incident occurred on 28/03/2018, at around 12:30 hours in his village. He was harvesting mustard at that time, and his 3 CRLA No. 3031 of 2024 brother informed him that Nanku, Ramdeen, Deenanath, and the wife of Ramdeen had brutally assaulted his father. He, along with his mother and brothers reached the place of the incident, and his father was taken to PHC Khargupur by motorcycle and thereafter he was Maharajganj by a Thelia and thereafter by motorcycle to Khargupur Police Station. He died during treatment. He next submitted that the deceased, Mangal Prasad, died in an attack made by a bull in which he was thrown away and suffered fatal injuries on his chest and other parts of the body. Although this fact has not been admitted by prosecution witnesses bu the wife of the deceased admitted in cross-examination that she received accident death. She received ₹5 lakhs under the Kisan Durghatna Beema Scheme on account of death of her husband. He also submitted that the appellant is a woman. She is lodged in jail custody along with her minor children, and her two minor daughters are residing at home under the guardianship of her mother-in-law. Therefore, proper care of her children makes it desirable that she may be granted liberty of bail in the present appeal. There is no apprehension that she will misuse the liberty of bail. The appeal is new, and it will take considerable time for its hearing and disposal on the merits due to huge backlog. It is also submitted that PW-4 Vikas is the only eyewitness produced by the prosecution, and he has given a general statement that Ramdeen, his wife, Dinanath, and Nanku were assaulting his father. He identified Deenanath in court and stated that the accused were assaulting his father with stick of sagwan (teak) and lathi. When he rushed to save 4 CRLA No. 3031 of 2024 his father, Ramdeen slapped him. Thus, no specific role has been assigned; therefore, a general role has been assigned to the appellant in the offenses. In the postmortem report, 8 external antemortem injuries were found on his person, out of which only two injuries were on the head and other injuries were on non-vital parts of the body. However, no serious and internal injuries were found.

6. Per contra, the learned AGA submitted that as many as eight ribs of the deceased were found fractured, and his liver and lungs were lacerated, which shows the intensity of the assault given to him in the said incident. However, it is not disputed that neither in the FIR nor in the evidence of the witnesses specific role assigned to the appellant, and this fact is also not disputed that the appellant is to take care of her children. Two of her children are lodged with her in jail custody due to the fact that they are less than six years of age.

7. Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that no specific role has been assigned to the appellant and she is a woman, and that she had to take care of four minor children, without expressing any opinion on the merits, and keeping in view the peculiar situation of the appellant and also the fact that she has been held in jail custody for one year four months, and she was held in jail custody during trial for some time before her release from jail by order of this Court, I find it to be a fit case for her release during the pendency of bail.

8. Let the appellant, namely, Savitri Devi, be released on bail in the 5 CRLA No. 3031 of 2024 aforesaid Sessions Trial number during the pendency of appeal upon her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

9. On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bonds, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record.

10. The appellant has undertaken not to indulge into any anti-social activity particularly against the informant and in the event of any such incident it shall be open to the complainant to make an application for cancellation of bail.

11. As regards fine, the appellant is directed to deposit half of the amount of fine with the trial court within two weeks of her release from jail pursuant to present bail order and remaining half of the fine shall be stayed during pendency the appeal.

12. It is also observed that no parity will be permitted to be claimed by the co-accused persons. Order of Appeal List the appeal for hearing in due course. December 8, 2025 KR (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)