Allowed

Neetu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2019BAIL/51569/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, Applicant Neetu, implicated for dowry death allegations including Section 498-A IPC, sought release. The court found no specific role assigned to her and allowed bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties under specified conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to three conditions regarding evidence, witnesses, and court appearances.

Neetu Vs State of U.P. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51569 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Neetu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Pathak 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 jethani of the deceased. At the time of alleged incident the applicant was living separate from the deceased and her husband. There was no dispute of demand of dowry. The applicant has not harassed or tortured the deceased. It has further been submitted that there is general allegation against the applicant, no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. In the postmortem report, the cause of death of the deceased has been shown asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. The deceased has committed suicide herself. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of the husband of the deceased. There is no criminal history of the applicant and is in jail since 24.2.2019.

¶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 Neetu involved in Case Crime No.369 of 2019, under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station Kerakat District Jaunpur 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 :- 10.12.2019 Gss

Neetu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neetu 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

Gullu @ Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Malwati @ Mala Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Dayashankar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Nafeesa Vs State of U.P.

Shadab Vs State of U.P.