Allowed

Smt. Ishrat Jahan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2019BAIL/7428/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to Smt. Ishrat Jahan in a murder and abetment case, finding her pleadies regarding false implication credible. Bail was allowed subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence and ensuring trial participation.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with specific undertakings regarding trial cooperation and law-abiding conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 45 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7428 of 2019

¶2

Applicant :- Smt. Ishrat Jahan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Hasan Shaukat Abidi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶4

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

¶5

Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion; that as per prosecution case Sheebu @ Guddu husband of first informant Smt. Nusrat was missing since night of 1.12.2018, of which missing report was lodged by his wife Smt. Nusrat with allegations that she along with her husband had come to home of his sister Smt. Ishrat, applicant and in the night of 1.12.2018, her husband left without information; that after a period of 13 days dead body of Sheebu was recovered near pond and upon preparation of inquest report and autopsy of decomposed body on 16.12.2018 cause of death was opined to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation and time since death about two weeks; that thereafter F.I.R. was lodged by brother of deceased on 16.12.2018 falsely against applicant and others; that statements of Guddu and Mehandi Hasan about last seeing deceased in company of applicant are false and incorrect; that as per statement of Zaheer Ahmad, co-accused Afsar Ali and Smt. Nusrat made an extra judicial confession of offence before him, in which no role has been assigned to applicant; that case of applicant is distinguishable from Smt. Nusrat and Afsar Ali; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that she will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 19.12.2018.

¶6

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

¶7

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.

¶8

Let the applicant Smt. Ishrat Jahan be released on bail in Case Crime No.1261 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201, 506 IPC, P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶9

(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.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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 :- 21.2.2019 Tamang

Smt. Ishrat Jahan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ishrat Jahan 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

Chanchal Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Shahrookh Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Alias Pussu Ahirwar Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Singh Vs State of U.P.

Lalla @ Mahboob Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Shaikh Vs State of U.P.