Allowed

Tej Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2019BAIL/374/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to the applicant, Tej Singh, father-in-law of the deceased in a poisoning case under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and D.P. Act. The court noted the applicant's lack of criminal history and general role in the alleged incident.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 374 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Tej Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lakshman Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijai Singh Senger.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijai Singh Senger, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against three accused persons, namely, Hargovind, son of Tej Singh, Tej Singh (Father-in-law) and Ramjanki (Mother-in-law) alleging that on 19.5..2018 Pooja Devi daughter of the complainant was married with Hargovind @ Harendra Rathore on 28.11.2017. For demand of motorcycle and Rs.1 lac, they killed her by administering poison.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and he is an old person and is languishing in jail since 23.5.2018 (about nine months) having no criminal history. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. General role has been assigned to applicant. This is a case of suicide. He has no concern with the so called demand and he is not beneficiary of the same. They are living separately. She has committed suicide herself and better known to her. No injury was found on the body of the deceased except poison. There is no independent witness against the applicant. There is no eye witness account and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant 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 Tej Singh involved in Case Crime No. 138 of 2018, under Section 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act,

¶11

Police Station-Ait, District-Jalaun 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:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 20.2.2019 OP

Tej Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Singh 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

Mustkim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Malhotra and 2 Others Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Smt. Kusum Devi Vs State of U.P.

Nattho Devi Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Suman Vs State of U.P.

Mahanand Dwivedi Vs State of U.P.