Dismissed

Smt. Malti v. State of U.P. Thr. Its Sec. Home U.P. at Lkw

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2023BAIL/16815/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal bail application rejected by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The court held that the applicant is not a fit case for bail, though the trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously within eight months.

What did the court decide?

The second bail application is rejected; the trial is directed to conclude within eight months.

Smt. Malti Vs State of U.P. Thr. Its Sec. Home U.P. at Lkw — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:157582

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16815 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Malti Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thr. Its Sec. Home U.P. At Lkw Counsel for Applicant :- Alauddin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶6

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

¶7

This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the appellant was rejected by this court vide order dated 10.11.2022. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that out of 17 witnesses, not even the statement of a single witness has been recorded by the trial court. The husband of the deceased has been granted bail vide order dated 7.7.2023. The appellant happens to be the mother -in-law of the deceased. The appellant is languishing in jail since 4.6.2022, hence the prayer is made accordingly.

¶8

Learned A.G..A opposed the prayer.

¶9

From the perusal of the record, it is found that the charesheet has been submitted against the applicant and other co accused persons under sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. It is the allegation that since 1.11.2022 till now not even a single statement of the witnesses has been recorded and so far as regarding bail of the husband of the deceased is concerned, the bail order has been placed before the court but not even a single word has been mentioned therein that as on what specific ground the husband of the deceased had been granted bail by the coordinate bench of this court. While by order dated 10.11.2022 of this court, the first bail application of the applicant was rejected, it is the clear from the finding therein that as per inquest report multiple contusions were found on the neck of the deceased. Multiple abrasions were found on her right hand and abrasion of 4 cm was found on the thigh of the deceased. The contusion measuring 3 cm x10 cm was found on the lower chin of the deceased. In the viscera report aluminum phosphate was found. The court prima facie found that the residence of both the present applicant and the husband of the deceased was same in

¶10

the documents, so this court did not find the plea of separate living to be correct, hence, the only argument left that the husband of the deceased has been granted bail cannot be considered as a ground of bail for the present applicant.

¶11

Perusing the record, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 do not find it a fit case of bail.

¶12

The second bail application is the present applicant is hereby rejected , however, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant expeditiously preferably within a period of 8 months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

¶13

Order Date :- 7.8.2023 Gss

¶14

Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Malti v. State of U.P. Thr. Its Sec. Home U.P. at Lkw

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Malti v. State of U.P. Thr. Its Sec. Home U.P. at Lkw

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

Waseem Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhanpat Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju Vs State of U.P.

Dr. Heera Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amar Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another