Allowed

Reetu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2020BAIL/6242/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Misc. Bail Application of Reetu was entertained. The Court noted that no specific overt act was assigned to the applicant and she is a female first-time offender. The Court inclined to release her on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions to prevent tampering and ensure trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Reetu was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the amount to be fixed by the concerned court.

Reetu Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6242 of 2020

¶2

Applicant :- Reetu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajai Kumar Singh,Bharat Bhushan Dubey

¶3

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶4

Sri Mayank Bhushan, Advocate files Parcha on behalf of the applicant which is taken on record.

¶5

Heard Sri Mayank Bhushan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bharat Bhushan Dubey, learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Reetu seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 487 of 2019, under Sections 147, 302, 120-B I.P.C., registered at P.S. Mungra Badshahpur, District Jaunpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that as per the First Information Report, the applicant is named therein but no role whatsoever has been assigned to her. The role of causing injury to the deceased Sandeep Kumar Pandey, is assigned to Babbu Bind with an iron rod. The postmortem report shows four stitched wounds and the doctor has opined the death as a result of antimortem injuries which have further been qualified as that being head injuries. The same is shown to be only by iron rod. No overt-act has been assigned the applicant. Her role is distinguishable to that of co-accused Babbu Bind. She is a lady having no criminal history and is in jail since 22.10.2019.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid arguments as raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record and without further any comments on merit, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Reetu, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being

¶11

imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶15

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶16

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC.

¶17

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶18

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.

¶19

The bail application is allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 24.2.2020 M. ARIF

¶21

(Samit Gopal, J.)

Reetu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reetu 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

Anit @ Tota Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sewak Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Zakir Vs State of U.P.

Rajmangal Vs State of U.P.

Achchhe Hasan @ Najmul Hasan Vs State of U.P.