Allowed

Manju Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024/1761/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail application of Manju Kumari, a female accused in a murder case where the trial is delayed. Considering her lack of criminal history and the indefinite trial timeline, she was released on personal bonds and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/each.

Manju Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47906

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1761 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Manju Kumari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar,Bhupendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

In terms of the F.I.R., it was alleged that the niece of the informant aged about 4 years was missing since 29.5.2022. No one was named in the F.I.R. Subsequently, after the recovery of the body of the deceased aged about 4 years. It was revealed that there were as many as eight injuries on the body of the deceased. Subsequently, the statement of the informant was recorded wherein he stated that the brother of the informant was an affair with the applicant before his marriage and the applicant was forcing him to divorce his wife and an apprehension was expressed that she had committed the offence. Statement of one Pawan Kumar was recorded who is brother-in-law of Mukesh who stated that after the marriage of his sister with Mukesh, there used to be an altercation in between them and on account of the affair of the applicant with the said Mukesh, she was jealous as such the applicant committed murder and thrown the body of the deceased somewhere. Subsequently, a confession statement of the applicant was made wherein she stated to have committed the murder and at the instance and point out of the applicant, a brick was recovered which according to the prosecution, was the weapon used for commission of the offence in question.

¶8

A report was call for from the concerned trial

¶9

with regard to the status of the trial wherein it is revealed that the charge itself was framed on 13.3.2024 and thereafter the date was fixed for prosecution evidence.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the linked with the offence in question based upon the suspicion and there is no independent witnesses to the incident. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 31.5.2022 and till date trial is not proceeded and only the charge has been framed. Hence, the applicant having no criminal history, may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

Considering the fact that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future, the applicant has been linked with the offence in question based upon the suspicion and there is no independent witnesses to the incident'; the applicant is languishing in jail since 31.5.2022 and till date trial is not proceeded and only the charge has been framed coupled with the fact that the applicant being lady having no criminal history, without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the second bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Manju Kumari be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.257 of 2022, under Sections 302, 363, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Deva, District Barabanki on her furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶15

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶16

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶17

(c) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

Order Date :- 15.7.2024

¶19

Shukla

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manju Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rohit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) U.P. Lko.

Saroj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Ramu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Lko

Ramu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Lko

Chandan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.