Allowed

Smt. Mithla v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2019BAIL/48628/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge court examined a bail application, noting the applicant is a senior citizen and sister of the deceased, and her implication is unfounded. The court allowed bail subject to furnishing a bond and personal sureties, and conditions against tampering orWitness intimidation.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Smt. Mithla Vs State of U.P. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48628 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Mithla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lokesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is sister of the deceased. The other co -accused are sons of the deceased. There was no motive to the applicant to commit the alleged offence. The F.I.R. of the alleged incident was lodged by the son -in-law of the deceased. During investigation the statement of Mithla, the wife of the deceased, was also recorded and she has not made any allegation against the applicant. She has further stated that her sons Arjun and Ajeet have not committed the alleged offence knowingly. There is general allegation against the applicant. The applicant is a lady aged about 60 years. Nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on her pointing out. Recovery of lathi has been shown on the pointing out of the co-accused Arjun and Ajeet. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. In post mortem report the cause of death has been shown cardiac repatriate failure due to head injury with brain gedema. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. There is no criminal history of the applicant and she is in jail since 15.7.2019.

¶7

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail.

¶9

Let the applicant Smt. Mithla involved in Case Crime No. 508 of 2019, under Section 304, 504 and 323 IPC Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur District Lalitpur be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;

¶10

The applicant will not tamper with the evidences.

¶11

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and she will cooperate with the trial.

¶12

The applicant will appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 18.11.2019 Gss

Smt. Mithla v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mithla 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

Nitin Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Gahan Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju @ Rajesh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maiyadeen Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Umar @ Doodhiya Vs State of U.P.

Kamlawati Vs State of U.P.