Allowed

Jyoti v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2023BAIL/6334/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application regarding murder and conspiracy charges, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed the bail petition. Relying on the prosecution story and available evidence, the court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail without expressing an opinion on case merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6334 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Jyoti Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 433 of 2022, under Sections 302, 328, 201, 120-B, 404, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Hapur Dehat, District Hapur, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, an unknown dead body was found in the field of the informant on 29.9.2022 at about 7.00 am. Later on, the dead body was identified by the father of the deceased person on 1.10.2022.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is a lady and is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize her. It is stated that a missing report was initially filed by the father of the informant and no apprehension was indicated in it. It is further stated that there was no inkling of any motive of applicant having committed the said offence. It is next stated that on the same day, father and wife of the deceased person had indicated that the applicant was having illicit relationship with the deceased person and had got the said murder committed with the help of her another lover namely, Shoaib. It is also stated that there is no evidence to corroborate the said story except the said statement, which have also been foisted later on. Learned counsel has submitted that it is the story of the prosecution that the applicant used to talk to the deceased person on phone call, which stands corroborated by the CDRs of the mobile of the applicant and the deceased person and it is alleged that the applicant used to converse with the other co-accused persons namely, Shoeb and one Tariq. Learned counsel has next stated that there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant got the said offence committed.

¶10

The name of the applicant has later on come up in the statement of the arrested co-accused person that the applicant hatched a criminal conspiracy to put the deceased to death. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no direct evidence against the applicant. The CDRs are not the clinching evidence with respect to the said offence.

¶11

Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Venkatesh alias Chandra vs. State of Karnataka, AIROnline 2022 SC 595, whereby it is categorically stated that the recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is not a mere formality and the statement made thereupon to the police personnel, is not admissible against him.

¶12

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.10.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the motive is with the applicant only, as she was the main person instrumental in getting the deceased person murdered by the co-accused person. The same stands corroborated by the CDRs of the applicant and the coaccused persons and the deceased person. However, learned A.G.A. is unable to dispute the fact of no criminal history of the applicant.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, 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 .

¶15

Let the applicant- Jyoti involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶16

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

iv. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶20

v. 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶24

Order Date :- 20.2.2023 Shalini

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jyoti v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti 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

Udal Bind @ Rudal Bind @ Vikas Bind Vs State of U.P.

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

Sovendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gaurav Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Samasveer @ Samsu Vs State of U.P.