Allowed

Smt. Reeta @ Chhoti v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 May 2018BAIL/12260/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding murder charges, the court attributed rights to the applicant similar to a co-accused who had already secured bail. Despite the gravity of the offense, the court found the case fit for bail due to the lack of independent evidence against the applicant, no criminal history, and the custodial period.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each subject to standard conditions.

Smt. Reeta @ Chhoti Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12260 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Reeta @ Chhoti Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. and supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant are taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

According to the prosecution case, the First Information Report was lodged on 03.10.2017 against unknown person alleging that on 03.10.2017, brother of the complainant Amit @ Monu Yadav was shot dead by unknown person. During investigation, it was found that coaccused Rinku shot fired at the deceased after getting Rs. 3 lac with conspiracy of Sanjay and the applicant. Rinku on his confessional statement before the police personnel stated that he had an illicit relation between the wife of the deceased hence, he killed the husband of the applicant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Sanjay @ Mohit has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2017 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48622 of 2017, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of the co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 9.10.2017 (more than seven months); one and half year daughter is also languishing in jail with the applicant; she is not named in the F.I.R.; having no criminal history; there is no eye witness account or independent witness against the applicant except confessional statement of co-accused; there is no legal evidence against the applicant.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history and in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial.

¶10

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Smt. Reeta @ Chhoti involved in Case Crime No. 737 of 2017, under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶15

4.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶16

5.The applicant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 30.5.2018 OP

Smt. Reeta @ Chhoti v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Reeta @ Chhoti v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunder Vs State of U.P.

Satayendra @ Kalu Vs State of U.P.

Satya Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Javed Vs State of U.P.

Akeel Ahmad Vs State of U.P.