Allowed

Santoshi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2023BAIL/52992/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to the applicant, Santoshi, accused ofabetrayal conspiracy in a murder case involving IPC 302. Relying on Article 21 and recent Supreme Court dicta regarding overcrowding and speedy trial, the court allowed bail subject to strict conditions of presence and non-tampering, directing the trial court to conclude the trial within one year.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was allowed; the applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to strict conditions including personal attendance in court and prohibition

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

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52992 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Santoshi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Initially no one was named in the first information report lodged under Section 302 I.P.C. Subsequently, the applicant has been implicated in this case on the allegation that she had affair with the co-accused, Ravi. She has got her husband murdered through co-accused, Ravi because of her strained relation-ship with her husband. Minor daughter of the applicant has stated that her mother used to inform the location of her father to coaccused, Ravi. Co-accused, Ravi has murdered the deceased. Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. At the most role of hatching of conspiracy has been assigned to her. She has not committed murder of the deceased nor anything incriminating has been recovered from her, which has been used in murder of her husband.

¶7

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the 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.

¶9

Let the applicant, Santoshi, involved in Case Crime No.71 of 2021, under Sections 302, 120B I.P.C, Police Station Ayana, District- Auraiya be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶10

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶11

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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

¶12

accordance with law.

¶13

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

¶17

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted

¶18

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶19

Order Date :- 24.1.2023 SS

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Santoshi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santoshi 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

Gulab Pal Vs State of U.P.

Kale @ Sahab Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sudama @ Anuruddha Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vikram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dinesh Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Sudhir Maurya @ Babaji Vs State of U.P.