Allowed

Manju v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2018BAIL/3900/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to a female applicant charged with kidnapping a newborn under Section 363 IPC. The court noted no criminal history, lack of fugitive status, and agreed with the prosecution that the accused had no motive to commit the offence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties subject to standard bail conditions.

Manju Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3900 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Manju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nasiruzzaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. According to the prosecution case the F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant Manju alleging that on 11.11.2017 she kidnapped the newly born baby of complainant Babloo.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; there is no independent witness against the applicant; the applicant is a lady; there is no intention or motive to commit this offence; in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial; she is languishing in jail since 12.11.2017 (four months) having no criminal history.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and admitted that he has received no criminal history against this accused.

¶8

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.

¶9

Let the applicant Manju involved in the Case Crime No. 1166 of 2017, under Section 363 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶10

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶11

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶12

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶13

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

¶14

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 12.2.2018 A. Tripathi

Manju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju 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

Saurabh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anwar Vs State of U.P.

Rameshwar Vs State of U.P.

Inam and Another Vs State of U.P.

Abid and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Nanhi Devi Vs State of U.P.