Allowed

Bhagwati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2019BAIL/56294/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal bail application where the High Court granted bail to a female applicant charged with murder and human trafficking. The court held that since the main culprit was a co-accused whose confession implicated the applicant, and the applicant had spent over six months in jail without independent evidence against her beyond the co-accused's statement, she was a fit case for bail subjec

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against criminal activity, tampering with evidence, and ensuring court attendance.

Bhagwati Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56294 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Bhagwati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Srivastava,Dan Bahadur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant Sri Vikas Srivastava and learned A.G.A. are present.

¶6

Heard on bail application.

¶7

The accused applicant- Bhagwati has given the bail application in Case Crime No. 176 of 2019, under Sections 364, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station- Koraon, District- Prayagraj.

¶8

As per F.I.R. version, an F.I.R. was lodged by Smt. Saniya Begum on 16.04.2019 stating that on 14.04.2019 at about 8.30. am. the named accused Indrajeet took her husband Firoz to Bansghat forest on the pittance of fishing from where her husband was missing and she believes some untowards incident has taken place with her husband.

¶9

The submission of learned counsel is that on the basis of the F.I.R. accused Indrajeet was arrested and his statement was recorded by police who gave his statement in which the applicant who happens to be his wife was involved by him in causing death of deceased Firoz. He further stated to the police that his wife said to him that deceased Firoz was having illicit relationship from the last one and a half years with the applicant. Thereafter he has narrated the details how he and his wife killed the deceased. He has stated that he along with his wife caused death by throttling the deceased. He has further stated that thereafter he assaulted Firoz by a iron rod many times and thereafter they concealed the dead body in hedge. In the post-mortem report it was found that there was one contusion on the left side of scull of deceased and there was a hole in the left side of his scull, 6 cm above and behind his left ear. A metallic pallets was recovered from the brain, the opinion of the Doctor as contained in the post-mortem report is that the deceased died three days before. Out of coma and on his body anti mortem injuries were found. After the post-mortem report the statement of the co-accused Indrajeet was again recorded by the investigating officer in which accused Indrajeet has stated

¶10

that the deceased used to sexually abuse his daughter also and it was not liked by his wife/applicant. Therefore, Indrajeet decided to kill the deceased and when the deceased was sitting in his house, from behind, he hit on his head by an stick whereupon he fell down he and applicant took the deceased in the room and thereafter they killed the deceased by throttling and thereafter pricking the body by iron rod on different places he filled pallets and both together disposed of of the dead body.

¶11

The submission of the learned counsel is that except the confessional statement of the co-accused Indrajeet there is no evidence against the applicant. The statement of the co-accused that the body of deceased was killed by throttling, does not found support by the post-mortem report. From the statement of the co-accused himself, it is clear that he was the main culprit in the commission of the whole offence and the applicant has been implicated merely on the basis of his confessional statement. The further submission is that after investigation charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no possibility of influencing the witnesses. The further submission is that the bail application of the co-accused Indrajeet is still pending. The applicant is a lady and she is in jail since 16.04.2019 and she is prepared to furnish sureties and bonds as required by the Court. There is no criminal history of applicant. During investigation there is no independence witness or circumstances against her in order to implicate her in the commission of the offence.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has strongly opposed the bail application stating that charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant also and thereafter she is not entitled for bail.

¶13

Considering the submissions of both side finding that the main culprit who committed the offence as per his own confession and other evidence on record is the co-accused Indrajeet, also finding that the involvement of the applicant came in light only on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused. She is in Jail from the last more than 6-7 months as such I find it to be a fit case for bail. It is however, clarified that on the basis of her bail no parity shall be extended to the co-accused Indrajeet. The bail application is allowed subject to following conditions.

¶14

Let applicant Bhagwati be released on bail in Case Crime No. 176 of 2019, under Sections 364, 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Koraon, District Prayagraj, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.

¶19

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it will be open to the opposite parties to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 18.12.2019 Israr

Bhagwati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwati 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

Lokeshwar Dayal Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Chand Vs Judicial Magistrate First Bulandshahar and Another

Lavkush Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajvir Vs State of U.P.

Awadhesh Vs State of U.P.

Ramdas Vs State of U.P.