Allowed

Omwati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2019BAIL/6898/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the single-judge court examined the merits without expressing an opinion on the ultimate merits of the criminal case. Relying on the applicant's clean record, the prolonged period of custody, and the prosecution's failure to produce independent witnesses, the court was satisfied that the applicant had made out a case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in terms of the Act.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6898 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Omwati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Srivastava,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,Hari Krishna Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Pati Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against unknown persons alleging that on 14.6.2017 they killed Yogesh Patel(son of complainant). He received 14 injuries (abrasions, contusions and ligature mark). Death was caused due to strangulation.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a lady and languishing in jail since 19.6.2017(more than one year and nine months) having no criminal history. She has been falsely implicated. Name of applicant was surfaced after two days of incident due to previous enmity in the case of death of Luv Patel(son of Omwati) on account of drowning which was suspected to have been committed by Yogesh Patel(deceased). Hence FIR was lodged on the basis of suspicion. There is neither eye-witness account nor any independent witness. Recovery of danda(without bloodstains) was shown falsely. There is no possibility to get this case decided in near future. In case applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. He admitted that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation, period of custody, gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let applicant Omwati involved in Case Crime No.268 of 2017, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Bithari Chainpur, District Bareilly be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

¶11

court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶15

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.

¶16

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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 28.3.2019 P.P.

Omwati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omwati 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

parmeshwar Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Upendra Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Khan Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Aslam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Aslam Vs State of U.P. and Another