Allowed

Neelam v. State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2022BAIL/9754/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under S. 439 Cr.P.C. for a murder charge (S. 302 IPC), the court found the case rested on circumstantial evidence without admissible proof of presence. The applicant, a married woman with no prior record, was released on bail with strict conditions to ensure presence and prevent tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and five specific conditions including attendance for evidence recording and prohibition of adjournments.

Neelam Vs State of U.P through Its Secretary… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9754 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Neelam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Its Secretary Home Up At Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Gyan Narayan Kannaujia, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Neelam , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 319 of 2021, under Section 302 I.P.C. registered at P.S.Hathras, District- Hathras.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the F.I.R. the applicant was having illicit relationship with co-accused Sudhesh, husband of the deceased and due to that reason, she along with Sudesh Kumar committted the murder of the daughter of the informant. Post mortem of the deceased reveals that as many as 14 antemortem injuries were on her body and she died due to strangulation. After investigation chargesheet has also been submitted against applicant along with co-accused Sudesh Kumar.

¶8

The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the present case and she has been made accused in the present case only on the basis of suspicion. There is no evidence on record which show her involvement in the present case and except the confessional statement of applicant and coaccused Sudesh Kumar, there is no evidence on record on the basis of which it can be said that applicant along with coaccused Sudesh Kumar committed the murder of the wife of the co-accused Sudesh Kumar. He further submitted that applicant is a married lady aged about 40 years and she is having three children and there is no criminal antecedent to her credit and she is languishing in jail since 18.11.2021.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail submitting that applicant is specifically named in the F.I.R. and she was

¶10

having illicit relationship with the co-accused Sudesh, the husband of the deceased therefore, the applicant was having motive to eliminate the deceased, but he could not dispute the fact that except the allegation of illicit relationship, there is no other admissible evidence on record against the applicant.

¶11

The present case is rest on circumstantial evidence and except motive there is no admissible evidence against the applicant. Applicant neither lived alongwith the co-accused Sudesh (husband of deceased) in his house nor she was last seen either with the deceased or in the company of co-accused Sudesh on the date of incident. She is lady, therefore, applicant may be released on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Neelam , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

(iii) 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.

¶16

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., 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 him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶17

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening 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 him in accordance with law

¶18

and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶19

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

The bail application is allowed .

¶22

Order Date :- 21.3.2022 SY

¶23

Digitally signed by SWETA YADAV Date: 2022.03.22 17:11:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Neelam v. State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam v. State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lal Bahadur Vs M/D U.P. Jal Nigam and 3 Others

Suresh Chandra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kasim Bux Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sanjay and Anothers Vs State of U.P.

Rajmati Dhangar Vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh Chauhan Vs State of U.P.