Allowed

Madhu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Mar 2019BAIL/45611/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 302 IPC. The High Court held the applicant entitled to release, subject to furnishing a personal bond, two sureties, and complying with specific conditions regarding evidence tampering, trial cooperation, and criminal activities.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, ensuring trial cooperation, and forbidding further criminal activities.

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

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45611 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Madhu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Bhushan Upadhyay,Devi Dayal,Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Vishvendra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Devi Dayal, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This bail application has been filed by the accusedapplicant Madhu, who is involved in Case Crime No. 16 of 2016, under Section 498-A, 304-B, 302/34 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sainya, District Agra.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case due to dewrani of the deceased and there is general allegation against her in the FIR. It is further submitted that dying declaration recorded before her death, Victim has made general allegation against all the accused persons by stating that she was set at fire by pouring diesel on her. No specific role has been assigned either in the FIR or dying declaration against the applicant. Co-accused Murari (husband) has already been granted bail by Court below on 28.09.2016. Co-accused, namely, Sunil as well as Pawan Kumar and Banwari (Jeath) have already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 05.10.2016 and 08.01.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.28772 of 2016 and 524 of 2019 respectively. It is next submitted that the applicant is neither a previous convict nor she has any previous criminal history and she is in jail since 29.08.2017. It is further submitted that the applicant is lady and jethani of deceased, therefore, there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the factual submissions made by the

¶9

learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and rival contention of learned counsel, without commenting upon the merit of the case, I am of the opinion that the accused applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let applicant Madhu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶15

During trial, she shall not indulge in any criminal activities.

¶16

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 30.3.2019 I.A.Siddiqui

Madhu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu 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

Saurya Trading Company Vs Additional Chief Metropolitan and 2 Others

Neelam Rastogi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kumar Vs State of Up and Another

Abrar Vs State of U.P.

Shiva @ Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Wahid Vs State of U.P.