Allowed

Sangita Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2024/6338/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Allahabad High Court granted bail to Sangita Yadav, an accused in a homicide and abduction case, noting she is a first-time offender while a firer co-accused has already been released. Bail granted on personal bond and sureties subject to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering, intimidating witnesses, and presence in court.

Sangita Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2771

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6338 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sangita Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar,Mahesh Kumar Sharma,Sachin Upadhyay,Shivendra S Singh Rathore Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Poojan Verma

¶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. It is alleged in the first information report that the brother of the informant Shri Ram Yadav was a Class-IV employee in Ram Manohar Lohiya, Lucknow and on 18.12.2021 at about 6.30p.m., Awshisht, the co-accused with his accomplish came to Ram Manohar Lohiya and on the pretext of purchasing his vehicle No.UP32BM5048 has enticed him away.

¶8

3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that except the confessional statement of the co-accused Awshisht, there is no other material in the case diary against the applicant.

¶9

The co-accused Santosh Kumar who was assigned the role of firing has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 27.3.2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of this court in Bail application No.8216 of 2022. It is submitted that the case of the applicant is on better footing than that of the co-accused Santosh Kumar who has been granted bail.

¶10

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.

¶11

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the co-accused named above has been enlarged on bail, the applicant who is a lady has no criminal history, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the applicant is in jail since 30.12.2021, and without expressing

¶13

any opinion on the merits of the case, I am prima facie satisfied that it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail and accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

6. Let the applicant Sangita Yadav, involved in Case Crime No.684 of 2021 under sections 302, 364, 420, 201, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Vibhuti Khand, district Lucknow, 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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 him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(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.

¶21

7. Observation(s) made herein above shall not be considered as an expression of opinion on merit of the case.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.1.2024 kkb/

¶23

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

Sangita Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangita Yadav 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

Similar cases

Jubair Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Surendra Rawat @ Matru Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Annu @ Vimlesh Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko.

Pawan Rathore and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Jamal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Ashish Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.