Atarkali Vs State of U.P.

In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14648 of 2020

Applicant :- Atarkali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Zafar Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶4

As per the Office report dated 18.08.2020, an urgency application has been moved on behalf of the applicant in the present bail application through e.mail, which has been allowed vide order dated 18.08.2020, hence the present bail application has come before this Court today in the cause list of fresh cases. The the Court thus proceeds to hear the matter.

¶5

Heard Sri Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Sharma, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State through Video Conferencing and perused the record.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case only on account of suspicion made by the informant, as it is alleged that the applicant was having illicit relationship with the Ram Ratan, husband of deceased and in whose house the dead body of the deceased was found. He submits that the marriage of deceased with co-accused Ram Ratan was solemnized 12 years ago. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent. The applicant is in jail since 4.5.2020.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶9

Let the applicant Atarkali involved in Case Crime No.159 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 302, 323 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Hayatnagar, District Sambhal, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned and the court concerned shall take an undertaking from the sureties that the properties movable/immovable which are the basis of accepting the surety, shall not be disposed of by them during the

¶10

pendency of the trial with the following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶12

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶15

(v) The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, before the trial court & shall furnish an undertaking not to leave the country until permission is obtained by her from this Court or till the conclusion of the trial.

¶16

The case of the applicant is distinguishable from co-accused Ram Ratan, from whose house the dead body was found.

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶18

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶19

Order Date :- 19.8.2020/Tamang

Atarkali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atarkali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Shrma @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P.

Khusboon Vs State of U.P.

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Devendra and Another Vs State of U.P.

Yasin Vs State of U.P. and Another