Allahabad High Court
Smt. Brinhma Devi vs State Of U.P. on 3 March, 2020
Author: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2059 of 2017 Appellant :- Smt. Brinhma Devi Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Vishwa Vandhu Tripathi,Ashok Kumar Singh,Rahul Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
(Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.121523 of 2017) Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Accused/appellant- Smt. Brahma Devi has filed instant bail application to release her on bail during pendency of appeal, filed against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Unnao in Sessions Trial No. 95 of 2014, "State Vs. Shiva & 2 Others" arising out of Case Crime No. 691 of 2013, under Section 364A I.P.C. relating to Police Station- Bangarmau, District- Unnao, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 364A I.P.C. with fine stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant, while pressing the bail application on behalf of the appellant- Smt. Brahma Devi submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis that her daughter was found involved in the case and there is no reliable evidence available against her and that the trial court has committed illegality in convicting the appellant for the offence, which she has never committed and, therefore, has passed the judgment only on the basis of 'surmises and conjunctures'.
It is further submitted that the only evidence which is available against the appellant is that the person abducted was found in her house along with her daughter- Manju and other co-accused persons and she being a lady could not have any doubt that accused persons including her daughter may be involved in any criminal act and, therefore, only on the basis of the fact that the person abducted was found in her house at fateful night, she could not be attributed with any criminal conspiracy.
It is also submitted that appellant being a lady of old age could not hatch any conspiracy and this aspect of the matter has been ignored by the court below and even otherwise also the allegations with regard to the kidnapping of the child has been leveled against her daughter- Manju and the appellant has not committed anything illegal.
It is also submitted that three co-accused persons of this case, namely, Wakeel, Anil Kumar and Ravi were declared juvenile and have been acquitted vide order dated 12.11.2018 by Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao passed in Criminal Case No.158 of 2013 pertaining to Case Crime No.691 of 2013, under Section 364A I.P.C., Police Station- Bangarmau, District- Unnao. The appellant, during the course of trial, was released on bail and she has never misused the liberty granted by the Court and she is in jail in this matter since 26.09.2017.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer for bail on the ground that the recovery of the abducted person was effected from the house of the appellant and, therefore, it could not be said that she was not the conspirator. It is further submitted that other co-accused persons including her daughter were found in the house of the appellant and, therefore, the trial court has not committed any illegality in convicting the appellant and, therefore, she is not entitled to be released on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the trial court, it is prima-facie evident that the appellant, who is a lady, was found in her house in night hours, wherefrom the person abducted has been recovered. Smt. Manju Devi, who is the daughter of appellant is stated to be a conspirator along with other co-accused persons including Wakeel, Anil Kumar and Ravi, who have been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board. No criminal history has been assigned to the appellant and apart from Smt. Manju, other co-accused persons have also been found in the house of appellant. It is overwhelmingly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that by mere presence in her own house the appellant could not be attributed with any kind of conspiracy as no overt act has been assigned to her by the prosecution.
Considering the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting upon merits, we are of the considered view that the appellant may be enlarged on bail.
Let appellant/applicant- Smt. Brahma Devi convicted in aforesaid case be released on bail on her furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
The whole amount of fine imposed by the subordinate court shall be deposited by the appellant within 15 days after being released from prison on bail.
A copy of the personal bond and surety bond shall be transmitted to this Court by the subordinate court for being kept on record of the file of appeal.
It is clarified that the observation made herein above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and will not have any bearing on the final out come of the appeal.
(Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.) (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.) Order Date :- 3.3.2020 Saif