Allowed

Smt. Akil Jaha @ Akhatari v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Oct 2021BAIL/24002/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the mother-in-law of the deceased in a murder case under Sections 304, 498A IPC. The Court observed that the fatal injury was caused by a co-accused, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and assigned lesser role, though other final remarks were made. The application was allowed subject to specific conditions including filing an undertaking again

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on execution of personal bond and two sureties (to be furnished within a month of court reopening) subject to multiple conditions.

Smt. Akil Jaha @ Akhatari Vs State of U.P. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24002 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Akil Jaha @ Akhatari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amir Khan

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Ram Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Rehan Waris, learned counsel or the informant and Ms Anjali Upadhya, learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present bail application the applicant, who is facing prosecution in connection with Case Crime No.62 of 2021, u/s 498A, 323, 304, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Dilari, DistrictMoradabad, is seeking her enlargement on bail during trial. The applicant is in jail since 06.4.2021.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The F.I.R. in this case was got registered by the husband of the deceased namely Mahfuz on 29.3.2021 for the incident said to have taken place on 28.3.2021 against his own parent Aquil Jahan and Maqsood and his younger brother Mikki. As per the text of the F.I.R., on account of certain domestic misunderstanding and quarrel, all these named accused persons have assaulted upon the wife of the informant by lathi and danda. A general role of assault has been attributed to all named accused persons and the injured/deceased Haseen Jahan lost her life on 31.3.2021. Postmortem report of the deceased reveals that there is stitched wound admeasuring 5 cm x 5 cm over the head and one abrasion over her right face. Rest of the three injuries are on non vital part of the body of the deceased. In the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. the informant has given an eyewitness account to the incident, in which he has specifically attributed the role of giving fatal assault upon the deceased to his younger brother Mikki. In this view of the matter, the case of co-accused Mikki is distinguishable from the rest of the accused persons. The applicant is in jail since 6.4.2021 having no criminal antecedents.

¶8

Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by making a mention that there are as many as five injuries over the deceased and all named accused persons

¶9

have assaulted upon the deceased, but he could not dispute the fact that the fatal injury has been caused by the co-accused Mikki. He further raised his suspicion that it is just possible that the parent may eliminate their son after being released. This suspicion of the learned counsel for the informant is too farfetched and has no legs to stand.

¶10

Keeping in view that the main role of assaulting fatal blow has been attributed to co-accused Mikki, the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused 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.

¶11

Let the applicant Smt. Akil Jaha @ Akhatari , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) 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.

¶13

(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 HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶14

(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., 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 IPC.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING

¶16

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.

¶17

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶20

1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶21

2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶22

3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶23

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

¶24

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶25

Order Date :- 27.10.2021 M. Kumar

¶26

Digitally signed by RAHUL CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.10.28 11:27:50 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Akil Jaha @ Akhatari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Akil Jaha @ Akhatari 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

Vikas Kumar @ Heeru Vs State of U.P.

Vicky Vs State of U.P.

Himmat Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Akram Vs State of U.P.

Ramveer Singh @ Bhure Vs State of U.P.