Allowed

Puneeta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2023/4992/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for bail allowed in a murder case. The applicant, wife of the deceased and mother of four, has no prior record. Incarceration has forced three children into an orphanage. The court noted the absence of recorded statements from children present during the incident.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and one surety subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence, not to pressurize witnesses, and to appear on future dates.

Puneeta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4992 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Puneeta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Iqbal Ahmad,Mohd. Kumail Haider Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Iqbal Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Kumar Sahu, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 139 of 2022, under Section 302 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Haswar, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the informant on 10.08.2022, who is the owner of a brick kiln stating that the applicant and her husband used to live at the brick kiln along with their family members and on 10.08.2022 at about 6.00 p.m., the applicant killed her husband by beating him with stick.

¶8

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, she has been falsely implicated in the present case and she has no criminal history.

¶9

The informant is not an eye witness of the alleged incident and in his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer he stated that his munshi Sabhajit Maurya had told him through telephone that the applicant had killed her husband while her children were present there.

¶10

The applicant's father in law has given an application to the

¶11

Superintendent of Police Bilaspur, Chhatisgarh stating that his grand son told him that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; that three out of her four children have been put in an orphanage and one child is staying with the applicant in jail and that his grand son Lala told him that the deceased was killed by munshi and brick kiln owner.

¶12

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant is the wife of the deceased; that she was living with the deceased in the brick kiln along with her four children; that statement of none of the children of the deceased has apparently been recorded by the Investigating Officer; that the incarceration of the applicant has forced three of her children to live in an orphanage and one child is living with her in jail; that the applicant is a women having no previous criminal history and she is languishing in jail since 11.08.2022 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am satisfied that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime.

¶14

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant-Puneeta be released on bail in Case Crime No. 139 of 2022, under Section 302 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Haswar, District Ambedkar Nagar on furnishing a personal bond and one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶17

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶18

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Before parting with the case, it is observed that it is strange that the statement of the children of the victim, who were present at the time of incident has not been recorded by the Investigating Officer.

¶20

The learned Trial Court is directed to take into consideration the aforesaid fact and pass necessary orders in the interest of justice. Let a copy of this order be provided by learned Additional Government Advocate to the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar.

¶21

It is also to be recorded that the court concerned shall take into consideration the economic condition of the applicant and the fact that she is a resident of District Bilaspur, Chhatisgarh, while determining the amount of surety.

¶22

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 13.4.2023 Ram.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Puneeta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puneeta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, 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

Chandra Pakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Suneel Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home Deptt.

Shiv Shankar Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Umar Ansari and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shiv Nath Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko.

Suraj Alias Lallu Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Other