Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2346 (ALL)

Maya Devi v. State of U. P.

2013-09-19

NAHEED ARA MOONIS

body2013
Memo of appearance filed by Sri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey on behalf of the complainant, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned cousnel for the complainant the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant-Maya Devi, involved in case crime no. 361 of 2013, under Sections 302, 120B IPC, P.S. Fareedpur, District Bareilly, with a prayer that he may be admitted to bail. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that on 8.4.2013 one Kallu lodged an FIR against Buddhu @ Budhsen Gupta with the allegation that on 7.4.2013 at 11:00 p.m. in the night when the complainant-Kallu and his wife Rehana along with their children were sleeping inside their house, the accused-Buddhu @ Budhsen Gupta armed with country made pistol, entered into his house and fired upon his wife. In a serious condition she was taken to the Siddhivinayak Hospital. On hearing sound of firing, some residents of the locality came at the spot. On 8.4.2013, while statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the complainant's wife had disclosed the real story behind the incident. Thereafter, on 9.4.2013 on account of having serious injuries, she succumbed to death. In her statement the complainant's wife had stated that there was an illicit relation between Buddhu @ Budhsen Gupta and Maya Devi, the present appellant and once she had seen them in objectionable condition, since that very day Buddhu @ Budhsen Gupta had fostered animosity against her. It is further contended that from the perusal of the statement of the deceased it appears that the allegations made against the applicant is false and fabricated as there is no evidence against the applicant. After post mortem of the deceased on 9.4.2013 the complainant has lodged another FIR on 11.4.2013 stating therein aforesaid concocted story about illicit relation of the appellant with Buddhu @ Budhsen Gupta, the case was converted under Section 302 IPC, on the ground that the death of the deceased has occurred on account of injuries sustained from the alleged incident. The role of the applicant is distinguishable with the co-accused. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.6.2013. Therefore, she deserves to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. The role of the applicant is distinguishable with the co-accused. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.6.2013. Therefore, she deserves to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Per contra, learned AGA and the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., just before a day when she died. She has specifically stated about the complicity of the present applicant with the co-accused. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, she will misuse the liberty of bail. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion about the merits of the case, let the applicant-Smt Maya Devi, involved in case crime no. 361 of 2013, under Sections 302, 120B IPC, P.S. Fareedpur, District Bareilly, be enlarged on bail on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (i)The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii)The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii)The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 8. In defiance of the above conditions, the prosecution would be at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail. _____________