Allahabad High Court
Rani Devi vs State Of U.P. on 6 February, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59919 of 2022 Applicant :- Rani Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailendra Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Durgesh Kumar Pandey Advocate holding brief on behalf of Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Tanay Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 424 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 427, 504, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station- Mangalpur, District- Kanpur Dehat, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
According to the prosecution case, FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 395, 397 IPC, according to the FIR, applicant along with other accused persons entered in the house of the informant and committed loot of a golden chain and miscreants also opened fire and due to fire opened by them son of the informant sustained fire-arm injuries on his abdomen.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire allegations made against the applicant are totally false and baseless and applicant is a lady and she did not participate in the alleged incident. He further submitted that in fact a sale-deed was executed by the husband of the applicant in favour of informant on 30.7.2022 but as it was executed for inadequate consideration, therefore, on 20.10.2022 applicant filed a suit to cancel the sale-deed and only due to this reason applicant along with others was implicated in the present matter. He further submitted that although, in the FIR and in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is allegation of the dacoity but when the statements of the injured and other independent eye-witness were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then they did not allege that any loot was committed and some independent eye-witness categorically stated that in fact no loot was committed and their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have been appended as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit. He further submitted that when the statement of the injured was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then he specifically stated that co-accused Vandan Tiwari opened fire on him on the exhortation of the applicant and therefore, from the statement of the injured it appears that only role assigned to the applicant was of exhortation. He further submitted that applicant is a lady and she is not having any criminal history and she is in jail since 20.11.2022, therefore, she may be released on bail.
Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that although, applicant is a lady but she actively participated in the alleged crime and from the FIR and from the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it appears that loot was also committed and even if statement of the injured is considered then also allegation against the applicant is that she exhorted and on her exhortation injury was caused by co-accused Vandan Tiwari and therefore, active participation of the applicant is evident in the present case.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
Although, there is allegation in the FIR and the in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that applicant along with other accused persons, who were more than five in number, entered in her house and committed loot and also caused fire-arm injury to the son of informant but during investigation when the statement of other witness was recorded including statement of injured then he only stated that on the exhortation of applicant co-accused Vandan Tiwari opened fire and due to fire opened by him injured sustained injuries and there is no allegation of any loot. Further admittedly, applicant is the wife of co-accused Sanjeev Shukla who executed sale-deed in favour of informant on 30.7.2022 and on 20.10.2022 a suit for cancellation of sale-deed was filed by the applicant and therefore, it appears that some dispute with regard to the sale deed dated 30.7.2022 is pending between the parties. Applicant is a lady and she is not having any criminal history and she is in jail since November, 2022.
Therefore, from the discussion made above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
In the light of discussions made above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Rani Devi be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 6.2.2023 KK Patel