Allowed

Smt. Snehlata v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2018BAIL/44744/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant, a female accused of illegal sex determination, acknowledging her lack of criminal history and the length of custody while formulating standard conditions to prevent tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail involving a personal bond and two sureties in like amounts, subject to conditions preventing tampering and intimidation.

Smt. Snehlata Vs State of U.P. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44744 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Snehlata Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vishwanath Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against Raman Ali, Sonu, Smt. Snehlata and Dr. Dinesh Thenuwa alleging that on 11.9.2017 they were arrested on inspection made by Additional Chief Medical Officer/Nodal Officer; in inspection it was found that in Amar Hospital activities of gender determination were being illegally done.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a lady and she is languishing in jail since 11.9.2017(more than five months) having no previous criminal history; she has been falsely implicated in the present case; in case applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶8

On the other hand, 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 the applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

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 view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let applicant Smt. Snehlata involved in Case Crime No.341 of 2017, under Section 315 IPC, 3A, 3B, 4, 5(1)(a), 5(1)(b), 5(1) (c), 5(2), 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), 19, 23, 25, 29 of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 and Rule 9,10,11 and 18 of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques ( Prohibiton of Sex Selection) Act, Rules, 1996, Police Station Jamunapar, 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:-

¶11

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the

¶12

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 she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she 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 :- 26.2.2018 P.P.

Smt. Snehlata v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Snehlata 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

Pravendra @ Pinta Vs State of U.P.

Jai Singh and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Saeeda @ Saeed and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Saleem Vs State of U.P.

Ibrahim Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Vs State of U.P.