Allowed

Smt. Sangita v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Mar 2023BAIL/51919/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a criminal bail application filed by Smt. Sangita regarding a murder trial where she faces charges under Sections 302 and 506 IPC. The court noted a lack of clinching evidence against her amidst an old matrimonial dispute and granted bail subject to personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties on conditions of non-tampering and court attendance.

Smt. Sangita Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51919 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Sangita Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Praveen Kumar Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State, Sri Praveen Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Smt. Sangita, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 237 of 2022, under sections, 302, 506, 120-B/34 IPC, P.S.Kotwali, District Jhansi.

¶7

The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to old matrimonial dispute. According to post mortem examination report only single injury entry and exit over the right side chest caused by fire arm was found and deceased Fazal Ahmad had died in the hospital. The applicant is named in the FIR and hr name was disclosed by the informant and other witness under section 161 Cr.P.C. but nothing clinching peace of evidene was found against the applicant. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that prosecution story is totally contrary to the evidence collected by the I.O. and not support the same. The allegation against the applicant is for hatching the conspiracy whereas there is no evidence against the applicant to demonstrate that the applicant is behind the commission of alleged offence. The applicant is wife of the deceased of this case, there is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicant. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that she is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make herself available before the court whenever

¶8

required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon her. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.06.2022. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the case of the applicant is on the same footing with the case of co-accused Ramgular Ahirwar who has already been released on bail by this court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 4692 of 2023 vide order dated 17.02.2023.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Smt. Sangita, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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:-

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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 her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶16

(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 her in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

The bail application is allowed .

¶20

Order Date :- 29.3.2023 RPD

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Sangita v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sangita v. State of U.P.

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

Navajish Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohjiv @ Maujim Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashish Biyar @ Golu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jahan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akhilesh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others