Allowed

Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2024/2267/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant, Soni, in a murder case. The court allowed the application based on parity with a co-accused already on bail, noting the circumstantial case, lack of criminal history, and similar jail period. Standard bail conditions for presence, no tampering, and no intimidation were imposed.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on execution of a personal bond with two sureties and compliance with specific conditions regarding court presence and non-tampering.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20353

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2267 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Soni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ambrish Kumar,Shiv Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

2.. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Jamal Ahmad with whom the present applicant is alleged having extra marital affair and due to that, the deceased Pappu Yadav has been done to death has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 2.1.2024 passed in Bail No11007 of 2023. The applicant's role is similar to that of the co-accused Jamal Ahmad. She seeks parity with the bail order of Jamal Ahmad. The case is of circumstantial evidence. There is no recovery from the applicant. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 23.7.2023.

¶8

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that it is a case of parity.

¶10

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history,the co-accused Jamal Ahmad has been enlarged on bail, the case is of circumstantial evidence, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without

¶11

expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶12

6. Let the applicant Soni who is a lady, involved in Case Crime No.255 of 2023 under sections 302, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Ramgaon, district Bahraich, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(iii) 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.

¶16

(iv) 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 accordance with law.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

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

¶19

7. The application is allowed accordingly, on the ground of parity.

¶20

Order Date :- 6.3.2024 kkb/

¶21

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home 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

Satendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Manoj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Taj Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vinod Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Danish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Raj Gupta Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others