Allowed

Ranjana v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 May 2019BAIL/17001/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17001 of 2019, the court granted bail to Ranjana, a married woman accused in a murder case involving her sister-in-law. The applicant argued false implication and lack of criminal history, while the State did not dispute these facts, leading the court to allow the bail application.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount subject to conditions against interference with evidence or witnesses.

Ranjana Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17001 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ranjana Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri K.P. Tiwari (B.H.), learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶7

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against four accused persons, namely, Mohit (husband), Kusum (mother-inlaw), Sundar Singh (father-in-law) and Ranjna (nand) alleging that Janak, daughter of the complainant, was married with Mohit. For demand of motorcycle, on 20.10.2018 they killed her. According to postmortem report, cause of death was found asphyxia due to ante-mortem injuries.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that co-accused Kusum has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.3.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 11373 of 2019. The applicant is a married 'nand' and languishing in jail since 18.3.2019 (one and half months) having no criminal history. She has been falsely implicated in this case. She has no concern with the so called demand and she is also not beneficiary of the same. She has committed suicide herself and the reason best known to her. General role has been assigned to the applicant and in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

Let the applicant Ranjana involved in Case Crime No. 2321 of 2018, under Section 323, 498A, 304B IPC. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Kavi Nagar, District-Ghaziabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties

¶12

each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 1.5.2019 OP

¶20

Court No. - 77

¶21

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17001 of 2019

¶22

Applicant :- Ranjana Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶23

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶24

In compliance of the order dated 24.4.2019, the report submitted by the Registry is vague.

¶25

Registry is directed to submit a fresh report on or before 13.5.2019.

¶26

List on 13.5.2019 in Chambers at 4-15 P.M.

¶27

Order Date :- 1.5.2019 OP

Ranjana v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjana 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

Shahrukh Vs State of U.P.

Nazarul Vs State of U.P.

Champa Devi Vs State of U.P.

Akhlaq Ahmed Vs State of U.P.

Chhotey Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Nirmala Vs State of U.P.