Allowed

Shanti and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2019BAIL/13626/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-bench judgment grants bail to two accused applicants involved under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC, and D.P. Act. The court held it a fit case for bail relying on the principle of parity with co-accorded bail and lack of flight risk.

What did the court decide?

The applicants Shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each under standard bail conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13626 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shanti And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This bail application has been preferred by the accusedapplicants, who are involved in Case Crime No.100 of 2018 under Sections.498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Maniyar, District-Balia.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that in the similar set of facts, in respect to the same occurrence coaccused have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 17.1.2019 and 1.2.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos.1943 of 2019 and 4371 of 2019, claiming parity, pleading false implication it is contended that the accused-applicants are languishing in jail since 23.6.2018. It has also been argued that the applicants are old mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased and there is no likelihood of their fleeing away from the judicial proceedings or tampering the witnesses and if they are granted bail they shall not misuse the liberty.

¶8

Learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail but could not dispute the factum of parity.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicants Santi and Achhey Lal involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶12

They shall cooperate in the trial bonafidely without seeking adjournments.

¶13

They shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶14

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 applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶15

Order Date :- 17.7.2019 S.Verma

Shanti and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti and Another 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

Prashant Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ishwar Chandra Jain Vs State of U.P.

Pintu Vs State of U.P.

Lilti Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sadab Vs State of U.P.