Allowed

Smt Neelam Sonkar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2023BAIL/56403/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail to applicant in quashing of abetment suicide case under Section 306 IPC. Court held applicant made prima facie case due to suicide nature and lack of complicity allegations, granting bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, no inducement, and no criminal activity.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56403 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt Neelam Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamalesh Kumar Nishad,Lalit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Thakur Prasad Dubey, Yogesh Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant.

¶6

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 413 of 2022, under section 306 IPC, police station Sarai Inayat, district Prayagraj, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the deceased is the cousin of husband of the applicant. The marriage of the applicant with Shebu Sonkar was solemnized in the year 2013 and she has three children, but the deceased was inclined to marry her and he used to mount pressure upon the victim to divorce her husband and to live with him, whereas the applicant did not like him. On 09.10.2022, deceased came to paternal house of the applicant and started mounting pressure upon her to go with him and on her refusal, he committed suicide by shooting himself.

¶8

It is next submitted that though the FIR has been lodged on 10.10.2022, under Sections 34/302 IPC against the applicant, her husband and other family members, but the investigating ofÏcer has submitted charge sheet against the applicant only under Section 306 IPC. It is argued that since the liking of the deceased towards the applicant was one sided, therefore, he himself committed suicide. There is no allegation of abetment or instigation on the part of the applicant to commit suicide by the deceased.

¶9

Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the

¶10

applicant that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant does not have any criminal history and is languishing in jail since 12.10.2022 and in case, she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but could not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant, whereas learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant opposed the prayer for bail by contending that it is not a case of suicide, but it is a case of murder because earlier there was dispute between the deceased and the husband of the applicant, but the investigating ofÏcer has not conducted fair investigation.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter as well as the case diary produced by the learned AGA, I find that Km. Priti, who is sister of deceased in her statement has stated inter alia that on 09.10.2022 at about 7.30 O'clock her brother Vijay called her and said to save him, but she thought that her brother was joking and, therefore she did not tell this to any other family member, but later on at 10.30 O'clock she received information that her brother has committed suicide. It is also not disputed that charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant under section 306 IPC, whereas investigation is pending in respect of other co-accused persons. There is no specific allegation of committing murder of the deceased against the present applicant.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has prima facie made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Smt. Neelam Sonkar, be released

¶15

on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶17

(ii) That 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 or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iii) That after her release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶19

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶21

It is clarified that anything observed in this order is limited to the extent of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence to be adduced uninfluenced by anything mentioned in the order.

¶22

Order Date :- 24.4.2023 Ishrat

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ISHRAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Neelam Sonkar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Neelam Sonkar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Komil Das Vs State of U.P.

Mujiburahman Vs State of U.P.

Hakim Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Baliyan Singh @ Nepal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rinku Badhana Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others