The Court upheld the bail application of a female accused in a murder case, noting the delay in FIR, lack of direct evidence, and jail overcrowding, without commenting on case merits.
Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5762 of 2022
Applicant :- Preeti Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 05 of 2022 at Police Station- Zafarabad, District Jaunpur under Sections 302, 201 IPC.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, on 19.01.2022.
The applicant is in jail since 07.01.2022, pursuant to the said F.I.R.
Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The delay in the lodgement of the FIR in the facts of this case is fatal to the prosecution case. The applicant is a lady. The applicant had no motive to kill the deceased as she was on good terms with him. Even as per the confessional statement of the applicant as well as the co-accused, the principal offender who strangulated the deceased is Indrajeet Nishad. Though it is stated that the confessional statement of the applicant insofar as it implicate her was extracted by coercion and submitted
under duress. The statement of the co-accused is not admissible against the applicant. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. There is no incriminating link in the chain of circumstances against the applicant. The mobile phone was recovered from the principal offender Indrajeet Nishad. The role of the applicant is distinguishable from the principal offender Indrajeet Nishad. Apart from the instant case the applicant does not have any criminal history. Lastly it is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond, and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.
Sri I.P. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA for the State does not contest that the applicant does not has any criminal history as disclosed in the bail application.
Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India) . These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.
I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for
the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Preeti Yadav be released on bail in Case Crime No. 05 of 2022 at Police StationZafarabad, District Jaunpur under Sections 302, 201 IPC, on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 18.2.2022 Pravin
Digitally signed by PRAVIN VERMA Date: 2022.02.21 15:58:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering the delay in lodging the FIR and lack of direct evidence against her.
Preeti Yadav
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
