Allowed

Km. Mahun v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2019BAIL/5325/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5325 of 2019, the court granted bail to the applicant, a woman accused in a murder case, observing that she is not named in the FIR and being falsely implicated. The applicant was to execute a personal bond with two sureties and comply with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail under Sections 302, 201 IPC with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding court attendance and lawful conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5325 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Km. Mahun Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant is not named in F.I.R. and has been falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged on 7.3.2018 Shahrukh Khan aged about 22 years old, son of first informant left home between 9-10 a.m. on 6.3.2018 with Thekedar Rustam by his vehicle and between 7-8 p.m., Rustam called first informant and asked him to inform upon reaching of Sharukh at home, but Shahrukh did not return over night and next morning he came to know that dead body of his son is lying under bridge of Amarpurgarhi; that during investigation Saleem and Jafar stated themselves to have last seen the deceased in company of applicant and co-accused Rustom; that recovery of shoes and shocks of deceased was made at the pointing of co-accused Rustom; that applicant was not having any affair with Rustom and had no motive to cause death of her brother Shahrukh; that trial is in progress and P.W.1 Nanu, P.W.2 Saleem and P.W.3 Jafar in their statements on oath have not supported prosecution case and have stated that they did not see any incident; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that she will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 8.3.2018.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.

¶8

Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶9

Let the applicant Km. Mahun be released on bail in Case Crime No.83 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, P.S.Singhawali Aheer, District Baghpat on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶10

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that she is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶11

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶12

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶13

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. Order Date :- 14.2.2019 Tamang

Km. Mahun v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Mahun 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

Vakeel Vs State of U.P.

Chikhuri Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Atar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shafiq Vs State of U.P.

Satyendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Boby Alias Ankit Vs State of U.P.