Court allowed bail application of Malti Devi accused of murder under Section 304 IPC, noting lack of criminal history and reasonable grounds to believe FIR was delayed, while imposing standard bail conditions.
Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each, subject to standard conditions of appearance and non-tampering.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5081 of 2019
Applicant :- Malti Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.K. Tripathi, learned brief holder for the State and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged on 10.7.2016 (after 15 days of incident) against two accused persons, namely Malti Devi and Mohan Lal Maurya alleging that on 25.6.2016 they killed Savitra due to illicit relation between Malti Devi (Jetani of deceased) and Mohan Lal Maurya (husband of deceased).
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is the lady. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. FIR was lodged after 15 days of incident after thought and due legal consultation. Before this incident, there is no previous complaint on the issue of illicit relation. F.I.R. was lodged after 15 days of incident without explaining any delay. There is no independent witness and no legal evidence against the applicant. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. She is languishing in jail since 16.10.2018 (more than three and half months) having no criminal history and in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
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.
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.
Let applicant Malti Devi involved in Case Crime No. 170 of 2016, under Section 304 IPC, Police Station Sarai Mumrage, District Allahabad 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:
2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4.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.
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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 6.2.2019
A. Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be released on bail in a murder case.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR justifies bail release without expressing an opinion on the merits.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Malti Devi
State Of U.P.
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
