Shanti Devi v. State Of U.P. And
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38788 Court No. - 52 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24193 of 2024 Applicant :- Shanti Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Learned AGA for the State on the basis of instructions submits that notice upon opposite party no.4 has been served on 13.06.2024. Despite notice being served, no one has put an appearance on behalf of opposite party no.4.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Shanti Devi with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No.0041 of 2022, under Sections 363, 376, 506, 120B I.P.C. and Section 16/17 POCSO Act, Police Station– Badalapur, District– Jaunpur, during pendency of trial. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of applicant was rejected vide order dated 21.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 27912 of 2022 (Shanti Devi vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others). After the aforesaid, the second bail application of the main accused Dayaram Gautam has been allowed vide order dated 27.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.43002 of 2024 (Dayaram Gautam vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others) and has been enlarged on bail in view of the paragraph no.4 of the said application, which is as follows :- "Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is in jail since 21.02.2022 but during trial only part statement of P.W.-1 Sangeeta Devi has been recorded. Part statement of P.W.-1 was recorded in the year, 2023 and now non-bailable warrants are being issued against P.W.-1 Sangeeta Devi, since month of February 2024 for her appearance for cross-examination but she has not appeared before the trial court so far and the trial is held up since last more than one year. Lastly, it was submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 21.02.2022, having no criminal history, and that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail." The applicant is also entitled to be released on bail as the second bail of main accused Dayaram Gautam has been granted. As submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, during trial only part statement of P.W.-1 has been recorded. There is no chance of conclusion of trial in the near future. The applicant has no criminal history as the same has been explained in paragraph no.31 of the bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.02.2022. In case, she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, she does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because she is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned A.G.A. has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned A.G.A. for the State. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused- applicant is such that her mere presence at large would intimidate the witness. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the period of detention of the applicant for the alleged offence, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected. (v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (vii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Kalp Nath Singh Digitally signed by :- KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad