Allowed

Smt. Munesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 May 2018BAIL/18177/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18177 of 2018, the High Court allowed bail for Smt. Munesh, a woman accused of murder and conspiracy under IPC Sections 302, 201, and 120-B, citing her lack of criminal history, custody duration, and cooperation promise while exercising discretion to avoid trouble.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding trial attendance and non-interference.

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

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18177 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Munesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Amit Singh, Advocate on behalf of complainant is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged by Hoti Lal (brother of deceased Sanjeev Kumar) against driver of swift dzire car bearing no. U.P.85AK7900 alleging that on 2.2.2018 he drove the car on Sanjeev Kumar, resultantly died. Subsequently, a complaint has been filed by Hoti Lal to concerned S.H.O. alleging that Satveer Singh was seeing, one Pushpendra was sitting in the said car. On 4.2.2018 second complaint has been filed by Hoti Lal to concerned S.H.O. alleging that there is illicit relation between applicant (wife of deceased) and co-accused Pushpendra due to which they killed Sanjeev Kumar. According to postmortem report, deceased received two injuries.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is lady. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant was not named in the F.I.R. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. After thought, the false story was developed with legal consultation to grave the property of deceased and applicant was deprived from the benefit of Government service. On one hand, she lost her husband and on another hand she is languishing in jail. There is no possibility to get this case decided in short period in future. She is languishing in jail since 12.2.2018 (more than three months) having no criminal history and in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

Let the applicant Smt. Munesh involved in Case Crime No. 27 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Magorra, District Mathura 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:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 16.5.2018 A. Singh

Smt. Munesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Munesh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Karan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Devi Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mohsin Vs State of U.P.