Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1515 (ALL)

Manju Devi v. State of U. P.

2015-06-10

VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2015
JUDGMENT Vivek Kumar Birla, J. Heard Sri B.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Sri Moti Lal, learned counsel appearing for the Informant and perused the material placed on record. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that a complaint case was filed against the applicant as a counter blast and the same is absolutely malicious. It is contended that earlier a Marpeet had taken place on 30.3.1990 regarding which the applicant had lodged an NCR under Sections 323 and 504 against the complainant and family members and for this reason there was enmity between them. The alleged incident took place on 22.2.2007 and in the said incident the applicant herself received injuries caused by the rival complainant regarding which a complaint dated 2.3.2007 was lodged against the informant party, in which summoning order dated 8.10.2007 was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The submission is that the complaint was nothing but a counter blast of the said proceedings. Attention of this Court was drawn to an interim protection granted by this Court earlier in Application under Section 482 No. 15418 of 2008 wherein further proceedings of Case No. 854 of 2008 arising out of case crime no. 607 of 2007 under Sections 316, 323 IPC and Section 3(ii)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. Ramkola, District Kushi Nagar were stayed. Subsequently, the said application was disposed of by order dated 7.4.2015 granting interim protection for a period of 45 days so that the applicant may surrender and apply for bail. Now the bail application has been rejected by the Court below. It is next contended that the applicant does not have any criminal history and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is next contended that there are no chances of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 21.5.2015 and in case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 3. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 21.5.2015 and in case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 3. Sri Moti Lal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has strongly opposed the prayer of bail on the ground that earlier the protection were granted to the applicant because of concealing the material facts by the applicant before this Court and as such, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also perusing the material on record as well as keeping in view the role of the applicant in the present case, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant Smt. Manju Devi involved in case crime No. 607 of 2007 under Sections 316, 323 IPC and Section 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act, police station Ramkola, District Kushi Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: - 1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; 2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; 3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court. In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall automatically stand cancelled.