Allowed

Smt. Satyavati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Mar 2019BAIL/11798/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The applicant was summoned after her name was found false in the initial FIR. The court found her innocent, noted her lack of criminal history, and deemed the case a fit one for bail despite the gravity of charges.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to standard bail conditions.

Smt. Satyavati Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11798 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Satyavati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mayank Mishra, learned brief holder for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, the F.I.R. was lodged against four accused persons namely, Sher Singh, Smt. Satyavati, Vila @ Brajpal and Smt. Jantiya. During investigation, the name of applicant was found false and final report was submitted. Vide order dated 31.10.2018, applicant was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is the lady and mother-in-law (sas) of deceased. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is general allegations against the applicant. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. Final report was submitted against applicant thereafter she was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. There is no legal evidence against the applicant. She is languishing in jail since 31.1.2019 (more than one and half months) having no criminal history and in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶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 Smt. Satyavati involved in Case Crime No. 137 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Anwala, District Bareilly 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 trial.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 26.3.2019

¶18

A. Singh

Smt. Satyavati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Satyavati 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

durgesh Vs State of U.P.

Asif Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Prasad Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Deepu Yadav @ Ajay Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Veer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sukhdevi Vs State of U.P.