Geeta @ Shiv Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 861 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Geeta @ Shiv Kumari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Kumar (Singh),Abhishek Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this court vide order dated 22.9.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.15114 of 2021.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accusedapplicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.153 of 2021 under Section 302/201/328/404/411/120-B Indian Penal Code, Police Station Asiwan, District Unnao.

¶9

It is alleged in the First Information Report by the informant, who is the brother of the deceased, that the applicant, who is wedded wife of the deceased, along with her paramour Murshid got her husband eliminated to perpetuate their illicit relationship.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no recovery from the present applicant. He submits that except the call details made between the applicant and the co-accused Murshid there is no other cogent evidence. First Information Report has been lodged after delay of ten months and six days.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submits that the applicant is wife of the deceased and there are call detail records as well as confessional statement of the victim.

¶12

Perused the record.

¶13

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the facts that it is a case of circumstantial evidence; the applicant is a lady; she is incarcerating in jail since 26.7.2021; three witnesses of fact have been examined prima facie chain of circumstances appears to be incomplete and there is no chance of tempering with the evidence and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Geeta @ Shiv Kumari be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶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 he 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 his 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 his 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

Order Date :- 1.3.2024

¶22

Madhu

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Geeta @ Shiv Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta @ Shiv Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Raj Bahadur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. of Home, Govt. of U.P. Sectt. Lko. and Others

Satendra Yadav Alias Nannke Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Deepak Anand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Baiteri Alias Abdul Khabeer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko.

Siyaram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others