Allowed

Jyoti v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2019BAIL/10550/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail application No. 10550 of 2019, the Court allowed bail for Jyoti accused under Section 304 IPC. Though injured died alleging assault by bamboo, no independent witness or eye-witness account existed against applicant who had no criminal history and was finally a general accused. Applicant to furnish bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed, to be released upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions.

Jyoti Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10550 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Jyoti Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Harendra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Reema Gupta (B.H.), learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against three accused persons, namely, Sunil, Jyoti and Pinki alleging that on 23.12.2018 they killed Chandra Shekhar the husband of the complainant by assaulting and specifically stated that coaccused Sunil had assaulted with bamboo on his stomach hence deceased died. Bamboo was also recovered at the pointing out of co-accused Sunil.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a lady and is languishing in jail since 24.1.2019 (about one and half months) having no criminal history. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Specific role of assault with bamboo was assigned against coaccused Sunil. Recovery was also made on the pointing out of the co-accused Sunil. General role has been assigned against the applicant. There is no independent witness against the applicant. There is no eye witness account and in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Sunil.

¶8

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 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 opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Jyoti involved in Case Crime No. 426 of 2018, under Section 304, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station-Dudhara, District-Sant Kabir Nagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the

¶11

satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶12

The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

2.The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

3.The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶15

4.The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶16

5.The applicants 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 them 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 :- 13.3.2019 OP

Jyoti v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti 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

Sabiya Khatoon Vs State of U.P.

Arman Ali Vs State of U.P.

Vimlesh Alias Mukhiya Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Vs State of U.P.

Chanda Vs State of U.P.

Pinki Devi Vs State of U.P.