Allowed

Saira @ Saya and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2019BAIL/14080/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14080 of 2016, the Hon'ble Court granted bail to applicants Saira @ Saya and Nagma accused of murder and abetment of suicide under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, subject to standard conditions and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to standard conditions of cooperation, non-tampering, and no unlawful activities.

Saira @ Saya and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 45 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14080 of 2016 Applicant :- Saira @ Saya And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastav,Mohd Imran Khan,Rajiv Sisodia,Ved Mani Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Narendra Nath Tripathi Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶2

Heard Sri Ved Mani Sharma, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Narendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶3

Learned counsel for applicants contend that applicants are not named in FIR and have been falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion; that first informant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. developed a new story that his behnoi Ummeed Khan, deceased and his cousin Abrar were having illicit relationship with applicants, and upon a phone call made by applicant no.2, deceased alone went to meet applicants; that thereafter two witnesses Saleem and Rashid were produced as eye witnesses of the incident who stated that deceased was strangulated by tightening scarf around his neck by co-accused Abrar upon catching hold of his hands by co-accused Gaurav at Hasanpur Rehra Road near Bhandwali village and applicants helped Abrar in strangulating and also sprayed "chilli powder" in eyes of deceased; that newspaper report of his murder within jurisdiction of Police Station Nakhasa is wrong; that subsequently on 25.10.2015 upon arrest of co-accused Abrar and Gaurav, applicants were also picked from their home and recovery of scarf ( dupatta ) which was allegedly used for strangulating deceased was made from millet field under sheesham tree an open public place, at joint pointing out of applicants of which there is no independent witness; that above recovery may not be imputed on applicants; that extra judicial confession of offence allegedly made by co-accused Abrar and Gaurav Pal before Sartaj Khan and Ameer Khusro is not binding on applicants; that confessional statement of applicants in police custody is not admissible in evidence; that applicants had no illicit relations with deceased and no motive to cause his death; that applicants are unmarried girls and they neither strangulated deceased to death nor participated in the incident in any manner whatsoever; that case of applicants is distinguishable from co-accused Abrar and Gaurav Pal; that Gaurav Pal was adjudged juvenile and has been granted bail; that applicants have no criminal history; that applicants undertake that they will not misuse

¶4

the liberty of bail; that applicants are in custody since 27.10.2015.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that grant of bail to co-accused Gaurav Pal has no bearing on this case as he was declared juvenile; that applicants have aided co-accused Abrar who is the real culprit.

¶6

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment , as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶7

Let the applicants Saira @ Saya and Nagma be released on bail in Case Crime No. 427 of 2015 under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Nakhasa District Sambhal on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶8

(i) The applicants will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that they are abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶9

(ii) The applicants will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶10

(iii) The applicants will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶11

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicants to prison.

¶12

Order Date :- 29.1.2019 M. ARIF

Saira @ Saya and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saira @ Saya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeetu Pathak Vs State of U.P.

Khempal Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Anwar and 46 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhishek @ Shri Ram Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra @ Babbloo Vs State of U.P.