Allowed

Smt. Badrunnisha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2022/9244/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the accused-applicant in a case under Sections 498-A IPC and 304-B IPC, relying on the principle of parity with a co-accused already released on bail without examining the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

The accused-applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties under various stipulated conditions.

Smt. Badrunnisha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9244 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Badrunnisha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Afzal Hasan,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and gone through the entire record.

¶6

By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No.0248 of 2021, under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act lodged at Police Station Rupaidiha, District Bahraich.

¶7

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the role of the accused-applicant is similar to that of co-accused, Sabir Ali, who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9446 of 2022. The learned counsel claims parity. The learned counsel further submits that the accused-applicant has been languishing in jail since 13.04.2022.

¶8

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate, has opposed the bail, however, he has not disputed that the role of the accused-applicant is common to the said coaccused, who has already been enlarged on bail.

¶9

Considering the ground of parity and without commenting upon merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

¶10

Let applicant - Smt. Badrunnisha , accused of abovementioned FIR/crime number, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions, which are imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶11

(i) the applicant(s) 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(s) shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her

¶13

absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶14

(iii). in case, the applicant(s) misuse(s) the liberty of bail and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant(s) fail(s) 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; and

¶15

(iv) the applicant(s) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶16

[D.K. SINGH, J]

¶17

Order Date :- 20.12.2022 MVS/-

¶18

Digitally signed by MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN Date: 2022.12.20 20:04:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Badrunnisha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Badrunnisha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. U.P. Lko.

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

Ramesh Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko.and Others

Deepraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kranti Devi Alias Kanti Devi W/O Rajesh Singh (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Sudheer Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Ramesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Deepak Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko. and 3 Others