Allowed

Sangeeta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jun 2023BAIL/21880/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application under Section 306 IPC. The court was satisfied that the applicant had made out a prima facie case, noting inconsistencies in witness statements regarding a suicide note and a lack of incriminating evidence in that note. Bail was granted on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to standard conditions.

Sangeeta Vs State of U.P. and Another — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:126794

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21880 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sangeeta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shresth Pratap Singh,Aruna Singh,Kumar Kartikeya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 0061 of 2022, under Section 306 of IPC, Police Station Cantt., District Prayagraj with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶8

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent lady and she has been falsely implicated in the present case being wife of the deceased Aakash. First information report of this case was lodged after inquest proceedings. The son of the applicant and deceased namely Rishu is the witness of inquest proceeding but during inquest proceeding he did not say anything about the suicide note alleged to have been recovered from the deceased whereas in his subsequent statement recorded after five months of the incident, he narrated that suicide note was recovered from the place of incident. It is further submitted that contents of the suicide note does not indicate any abetment or instigation on the part of the applicant. It is further submitted that there is no cogent and credible evidence available against the applicant. The death of deceased occurred on account of ante-mortem hanging. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 04.02.2023 having no criminal history and that in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by contending that a suicide note was recovered from the deceased. However, he could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

¶10

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that nothing incriminating averment is found in the suicide note which can indicate that applicant abetted or instigated her husband to commit suicide.

¶11

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Sangeeta in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶13

(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.

¶14

(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶15

(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

(4). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 15.6.2023 AKT

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sangeeta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Bhartiya @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Shrama and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sheela Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Shakeel @ Baba Vs State of U.P.

Rambabu @ Ram Pandit Vs State of U.P.