Allowed

Jannati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2019BAIL/2244/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for bail in a murder case under Sections 302 IPC. Applicant, an old woman accused of involvement in her son's death, sought release after nearly two years in custody. Court allowed bail without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions including not tampering with evidence and appearing in court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2244 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Jannati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nazrul Islam Jafri,Afzal Ahmad Khan Durrani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

This case is being taken up as per order of Hon'ble The Chief Justice vide order dated 17.1.2019.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against unknown persons on 7.6.2017(after two days of incident) alleging that on 5.6.2017 Shameer Khan(10 years old-son of complainant) was missing and dead body was recovered on 10.6.2017 from the factory/house of Abbas(husband of Jannati). Hyoid bone was found fractured. Deceased also sustained two abraded contusions on head and right eye. According to postmortem report, cause of death was found asphyxia due to ante mortem throttling. Later on, on suspicion, names of Jameel, Abbas, Jannati, Iqbal @ Babloo, Saukeen @ Sonu, and Sajid @ Dabbu were disclosed. In the confessional statement of applicant and co-accused, deceased Sameer while playing threw mixture of soap in the eye of Innu; Innu sustained problem in his eyes. Deceased was throwing matchsticks; Sajid(son of Jannati) slapped the deceased who became unconscious the accused persons disposed of his body by burying in the factory/house of Abbas.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is an old lady and is languishing in jail since 12.6.2017(more than one year and seven months) having no criminal history. There is no role of applicant in the incident. Only being mother of accused Sajid, she has been falsely implicated due to suspicion. There is no legal evidence except confessional statement of accused persons. There is neither any eye-witness account nor any independent witness. Specific role of giving slap to the deceased, was assigned to Sajid. There is no possibility to get this case decided in near future. In case applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that dead body was recovered from the

¶10

house/factory of Abbas(husband of applicant). He admitted that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶11

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation, period of custody, gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let applicant Jannati involved in Case Crime No.1269 of 2017, under Sections 147, 363, 302, 201, 34 IPC, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad 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:

¶13

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

¶14

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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

Order Date :- 18.1.2019 P.P.

Jannati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jannati 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

Satish Vs State of U.P.

Phulmati Vs State of U.P.

Sharda Prasad Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Ramanand Vs State of U.P.

Nanhe Pal Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Vs State of U.P.