Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station
  • section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station
  • section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicants, namely Asha Devi, Isharawati, Shukuli Devi, Rama Shanker, Sandeep Nishad, and Mahaveer Nishad, filed an anticipatory bail application in connection with Case Crime No. 83 of 2020 registered at Police Station Manda, District Prayagraj. The case involves charges under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 504, 506, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The applicants contend that they have been falsely implicated and allege that the informant and his family assaulted them, resulting in injuries on the applicants' side. The procedural history includes the hearing of counsel for the applicants and the State, with partial withdrawal of the bail application by some applicants during the hearing.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail in the present case given the nature of the accusations and their backgrounds?
  2. Whether the bail application for some applicants who withdrew their prayer should be considered?

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

  • The applicants are wholly innocent and have been falsely implicated due to ulterior motives.
  • The informant and his family members assaulted the applicants, causing injuries on the applicants’ side.
  • The applicants have no previous criminal record except the present case.
  • There is no risk of fleeing from judicial process or tampering with witnesses by the applicants.
  • If granted bail, the applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail.
  • Applicants nos. 4, 5, and 6 chose not to press their anticipatory bail application further.

State's Arguments

  • The learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the nature of the accusations and the fact that the applicants have no prior criminal antecedents. It noted the partial withdrawal of the application by some applicants. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the court found that the lady applicants (Asha Devi, Isharawati, and Shukuli Devi) are entitled to anticipatory bail. The court imposed conditions on the grant of bail, including personal bond, availability for police interrogation, non-interference with witnesses, restriction on leaving India without permission, and verification of the order's authenticity by concerned authorities. The court also emphasized that the investigation should be conducted expeditiously and independently, uninfluenced by the observations made during bail consideration.

Holding and Implications

The court granted anticipatory bail to applicants Asha Devi, Isharawati, and Shukuli Devi subject to specified conditions. The anticipatory bail application of applicants Ram Shanker, Sandeep Nishad, and Mahaveer Nishad was rejected as they chose not to press their application. The decision directly affects the parties by allowing bail to the three lady applicants while rejecting it for the others. No new precedent was established by this ruling.

    Asha Devi v. State Of U.P.

    Ashok Kumar, J.:— Heard learned counsel for the applicants learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

    2. The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicants, namely, Asha Devi, Isharawati, Shukuli Devi, Rama Shanker, Sandeep Nishad and Mahaveer Nishad in Case Crime No. 83 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station - Manda, District - Prayagraj.

    3. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants are wholly innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that informant and his family members assaulted the applicants in which applicants side sustained the injuries. The applicants have no criminal history except the present one. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicants fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

    4. After hearing at some length learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that he do not want to press the anticipatory bail application on behalf of applicant nos. 4 (Ram Shanker), 5 (Sandeep Nishad) and 6 (Mahaveer Nishad).

    5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants.

    6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation and the fact that they have no criminal antecedent, the applicant nos. 1 (Asha Devi), 2 (Isharawati) and 3 (Shukuli Devi) as all of them are lady are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case. The bail application on behalf of applicant nos. 4 (Ram Shanker), 5 (Sandeep Nishad) and 6 (Mahaveer Nishad) is rejected.

    7. In the event of arrest, applicants-Asha Devi, Isharawati and Shukuli Devi shall be released on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 83 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station - Manda, District - Prayagraj till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:—

    (i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;

    (ii) The applicants 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office;

    (iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

    (iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

    (v) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

    8. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

    9. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law, expeditiously, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.

    10. The applicants are directed to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Asha Devi v. State Of U.P.
    (Aug 26, 2020)