Allowed

Smt Sanjeeda v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2018BAIL/29676/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J. disposed of Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29676 of 2018 filed by Smt. Sanjeeda, a 65-year-old mother-in-law arrested under Section 304B IPC, granting bail during trial with strict conditions to ensure presence in court.

What did the court decide?

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

Smt Sanjeeda Vs State of U.P. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29676 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Smt Sanjeeda Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Sri Onkar Singh, Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 23 of 2018, under Sections 304B IPC, and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Sikheda, District Muzaffar Nagar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is mother in law and the case is only under Section 304B IPC. The applicant is involved under Section 304B IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the cause of death is ante mortem hanging. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court that the deceased has sustained two small ante mortem injury which are not cause of death and the applicant is 65 years of old age lady. He next submitted that the husband of the deceased is languishing in jail. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 04.02.2018 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.

¶10

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

In view of the above, let the applicant- Smt. Sanjeeda be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 23 of 2018, under Sections 304B IPC, and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Sikheda, District Muzaffar Nagar with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶13

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY

¶14

OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶15

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶16

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶17

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶18

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶19

Order Date :- 7.8.2018

¶20

Abhishek Sri.

Smt Sanjeeda v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sanjeeda 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

Nikki @ Rinki Vs State of U.P.

Bans Narayan Patel Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Pinki Vs State of U.P.

Arjun and Another Vs State of U.P.

Munnulal Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Shaqeela Vs State of U.P.