Allowed

Sandeep v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2021BAIL/11885/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding a charge of abetting suicide under Section 306 IPC, the court noted conflicting witness accounts and the delay in lodging the FIR. Without expressing an opinion on merits, the court held that a case for bail was made out and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions preventing evidence tampering and witness intimidation.

Sandeep Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11885 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sandeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A., today is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No.280 of 2020, under Section 306 IPC, P.S. Sherkot, District Bijnor with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶8

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has not committed any offence. It was submitted that applicant has performed love marriage with deceased only about two months prior to the incident and that there is no question of any harassment of deceased by applicant. It has been submitted that there is absolutely no evidence that applicant has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. It was further submitted that alleged incident took place on 03.10.2020 and after that family members of deceased were informed and that first informant and his family members were present at the time of inquest on 03.10.2020 but at that time no report was lodged. It was submitted that FIR has been lodged after three days on 06.10.2020 and only it was alleged that deceased was harassed by applicant, due to which she has committed suicide. Learned counsel has referred statements of independent

¶9

witnesses, namely Saroj and Pooja, who are resident of the same area, and they have inter-alia stated that applicant has married with deceased about two months prior to the incident and they were living happily and on 02.10.2020, while applicant was seeing T.V., deceased has cried and when they reached there she was saying that she has consumed poison. It was further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 06.10.2020, having no criminal history and that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is husband of deceased and he used to harass the deceased.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegations, period of custody and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that a case for bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Sandeep involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶13

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶14

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶15

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

¶16

The applicant will not try to contact, threat or otherwise influence the complainant or any of the witness of the case.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.11.2021 Neeraj

Sandeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep 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

Mohd. Kasim @ Shabu @ Shahrukh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Lokesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt.Pinki and Another Vs State of U.P.

Gurdayal Vs State of U.P.

sameer and another Vs State of U.P.