Allowed

Chinki v. State of Up

Allahabad HC25 Jun 2018BAIL/23285/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Chinki in a murder case. The Single Judge granted bail on reasonable apprehension of witness tampering despite severe charges, imposing strict conditions regarding court attendance and prohibiting adjournments.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and prohibition on seeking adjournments.

Chinki Vs State of Up — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23285 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Chinki Opposite Party :- State Of Up Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶5

Sri Saurabh Kumar holding brief of Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the informant which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri C.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Saurabh Kumar Agarwal holding brief of Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the informant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant along with her husband and two other co-accused persons has been implicated in the present case. He submits that the deceased teased her on the festival of Holi on account of which some dispute arose between the parties. He submits that though the deceased died on account of ante mortem head injury but the applicant has no concern with the same. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent. The applicant is in jail since 19.3.2018.

¶8

Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and taking into account that the applicant is a lady considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶10

Let the applicant Chinki involved in Case Crime No. 81 of 2018 under sections 302, 504, 506, 34, 323, 324 I.P.C., police station Nagina, District Bijnor be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶12

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in

¶14

order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶16

The case of the applicant is distinguishable from other co-accused persons.

¶17

Order Date :- 25.6.2018 Shiraz

Chinki v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinki v. State of Up

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

Sri Bhagwan @ Ballar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Soni and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Avnish@Bholu Patel and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Rinku Vs State of U.P.

Ansar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Asha Devi Vs State of U.P.