Smt. Pappi Devi v. State of U.P.)
Case Details
Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52916 of 2021
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Smt. Pappi Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Dev Yadav,Ajeet Kumar Yadav,Mary Puncha (Sheeb Jose),Mohd. Kalim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Ms. Mary Puncha (Sheeb Jose), learned counsel for the applicant, Sri U.P. Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Smt. Pappi Devi seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 172 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 302 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Gandhi Park, District Aligarh. 4. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for non prosecution by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 42212 of 2021 (Smt. Pappi Devi Vs. State of U.P.). 5. The facts of the case are that the First Information Report was lodged on 11.03.2021 by Pravesh Kumar against the applicant and 4 other persons alleging therein that his sister Smt. Rubi was married to Jitendra @ Jitu on 14.02.2020 the accused persons used to harass and assault his sister for demand of additional dowry after which they were tried to settlement by villagers many times but 3-4 days back, due to demand of additional dowry his sister was assaulted. On 10.03.2021 all the accused persons at about 09:00 pm assaulted his sister and her neck was pressed as a result of which she died. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the jethani of the deceased. It is argued while placing para 13 of the affidavit that the marriage of Jitendra @ Jitu with the deceased is third marriage. It is further argued that Jitendra @ Jitu the husband of the deceased is in jail. It is argued that general and omnibus allegations against the applicant other co-accused persons. It is further 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 24 of the affidavit and is in jail since 14.03.2020. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and has been assigned role along with other co-accused persons of throttling the deceased as a result of which the she died. The deceased has received as many as five injuries on her body and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem throttling. It is argued that the same thus appears that the applicant along with other co-accused persons are involved in the matter but could not dispute the fact that the applicant is the jethani of the deceased. 8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that particularly looking to the fact that the applicant is a lady and general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against her. 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 applicant Smt. Pappi Devi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (one of the sureties of the applicant will be his family member) 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. 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. Order Date :- 19.4.2023 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad