The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by Smt. Rupa Samajdar. The court found prima facie complicity based on the postmortem report and held the offence grievous, negating the need for bail.
Application for anticipatory bail rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:60237
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1993 of 2024
Applicant :- Smt. Rupa Samajdar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Vaish,Amrendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for respondent State.
The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.244 of 2024 under Section 304, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Kothi, District Barabanki.
In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant is not a doctor rather she is midwife. She has treated the deceased while she was pregnant.
Perused the record.
According to the postmortem report the deceased died due to tetanus. Prima facie complicity of the applicant is evident. The offence is grievous in nature, thus no case for anticipatory bail is made out, hence rejected.
Order Date :- 2.9.2024
Madhu
Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable in a case alleging complicity in death due to tetanus where the offence is deemed grievous.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Rupa Samajdar
State Of U.P.
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
