The court allowed bail in a murder case under Section 439 Cr.P.C., observing that alleged eye-witnesses failed to reveal the commission of the crime during the inquest but made statements only after a two-month delay, thereby rendering the case fit for bail.
Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7689 of 2018
Applicant :- Sangeeta Alias Reeta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
This bail application has been moved under section 439 Cr.P.C seeking bail in Case Crime No.60 of 2017 (Sessions Trial No. 98 of 2017), under sections 302, 201 I.P.C.,Police Station Merapur, District Farrukhabad during the pendency of trial.
As per FIR, the prosecution case is that on 14.3.2017,the daughter of the first informant Km.Shilpi, who had gone out to cut the fodder did not return and was found murdered in the field of Awadhesh. Same day, the FIR was lodged at 18.30 hours at the police station concerned.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that two alleged eye witnesses who were also the witnesses of the inquest, at the time of inquest did not narrate that they had seen the occurrence but after two months from the date of occurrence have stated that the present accused along with co-accused was seen trying to strangulate the deceased.The co-accused has been granted bail by coordinate bench of this Court,whose role is at par with the role of the present accused. She is not involved in any other criminal case. The applicant is absolutely innocent and is languishing in jail since 15.5.2017. In case the applicant is released on bail she will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but has not controverted the aforesaid facts.
In the light of the aforesaid arguments, looking to the fact that the alleged eye witnesses did not reveal having seen the occurrence at the time of inquest and have stated so after two months from the date of occurrence and taking into consideration the nature of offence, quantum of punishment and period of detention in jail, the role of the present accused is comparable with the role of co-accused, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is found to be a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Sangeeta alias Reeta involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 5.3.2018 Su
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail in a murder case where eye-witnesses did not disclose seeing the occurrence during inquest.
Whether the suspicion against the applicant makes her a fit case for bail considering the comparison with the co-accused.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sangeeta Alias Reeta
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
