Allowed

Nirmala W/O Papu (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2022/9181/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the court granted bail to the applicant, who was the wife of the deceased in a murder case. The court imposed specific conditions regarding attendance and conduct in court.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions ensuring presence at trial and no abuse of liberty.

Nirmala W/O Papu (Second Bail) Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9181 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Nirmala W/O Papu (Second Bail) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Mohan Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

2. This is second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in FIR No.311 of 2021 under Section 304 IPC, Police Station Baghauli, Hardoi.

¶7

3. First bail application was dismissed being bail No.1702 of 2022 for non prosecution.

¶8

4. The accused-applicant is wife of the deceased. Informant is the father of the deceased who lives separately from the husband. As per the allegations in the FIR, there was a fight between husband and wife. As a result thereof, deceased suffered injuries and his condition got deteriorated. He was taken to the hospital where he died. Post mortem would disclose following ante mortem injury on the body of the deceased:-

¶9

"AM L.W. 3 cm x 2 cm present on right side of forehead just above right eyebrow"

¶10

5. Considering the ante mortem injury, charge-sheet has been filed under Section 304 IPC. The accused-applicant has been in jail since 27.06.2021. The accused has 3 children out of wedlock from the deceased. Except for one ante mortem injury, there was no other injury on the body of the deceased.

¶11

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶12

7. Let applicant Nirmala W/O Papu be released on bail in the aforesaid case on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :-

¶13

(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.

¶14

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

¶15

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

Order Date :- 18.8.2022 prateek

¶18

Digitally signed by PRATEEK ARORA Date: 2022.08.22 12:06:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nirmala W/O Papu (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala W/O Papu (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home

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

Shashi Kant Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Dukhraja Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Shyam Bihari Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Sachin @ Satyendra (Minor) Thru. His Brother Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Abhishek Bhansali Vs State of U.P. and Anr.