Allowed

Smt. Beenu Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jun 2024ABAIL/1268/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Smt. Beenu Singh and Ashok Singh in a case alleging abetment of suicide. The court granted bail based on lack of specific commission allegations, absence of a suicide note implicating them, and lack of criminal history, imposing standard conditions like summons compliance and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond and two solvent sureties subject to conditions of appearing before the court and not interfering with the investigation.

Smt. Beenu Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:42414

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1268 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Beenu Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Shukla,Durga Prasad Singh,Omkar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Omkar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Shri Vishwanath Nishad, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing No. 0076 of 2024, under Section 306 I.P.C., registered at Police Station - Gudamba, District - Lucknow.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 06.03.2024 against the applicants and their son, stating that the informant's daughter aged about 21 years, who was pursuing II^nd year of A.N.M. course and who was residing in a rented accommodation, used to talk to the applicant's son through phone and the applicants' son physically exploited her under allurement of marrying her but when the informant's daughter pressurized the applicants' son to marry her, he declined. The FIR states that the applicants' and their son harassed the informant's daughter by various means due to which she committed self immolation.

¶9

Several photographs of the deceased and the applicants' son have been annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the application in support of the contention that they were in an affectionate relationship.

¶10

In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application it has been contended that the applicants are innocent, they have falsely been implicated in the present case and they have no criminal history.

¶11

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and keeping in view of the fact that there is no specific allegation of any act of commission by the applicants and the FIR merely contains a vague allegation that the applicants harassed the informant's daughter by various means, it appears that deceased was in an affectionate relationship with the applicants' son and that the deceased has not left any suicide note implicating the applicants, as also, the applicants have no criminal history, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants.

¶13

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed . In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicants - Smt. Beenu Singh & Ashok Singh before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid FIR, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

¶14

(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(ii) that the applicants 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

(iii) that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court'

¶17

(iv) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶18

(v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

Order Date :- 4.6.2024 Lokesh Kumar

¶20

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶21

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

Smt. Beenu Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Beenu Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Dileep Rajput Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Chand Babu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home Lko and 3 Others

Mateen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Smt. Beenu Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Suraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.