Allowed

Kavita Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2024BAIL/1323/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed bail to the applicant charged with murder under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The court observed that the primary link was based on the statement of a maid servant regarding unidentified voices, without corroborative recovery or trial impediment. A.G.A. opposed the bail but the court permitted release on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties of equal amount with conditions to attend hearings, not commit similar offences, and not tamper with evidence.

Kavita Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11756

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1323 of 2024 Applicant :- Kavita Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushal Kishore Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant and perused the record. The Vakalatnama is taken on record.

¶6

2 . The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.263 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 120B IPC, Police Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow.

¶7

3 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the sister of the informant aged about 34 years staying alone and was not married. She was staying with her maid servant who had informed the informant that on 27.04.2022 at about 6:30 PM, some phone call was received and then the deceased had informed that she would go alone and would return late and when she tried to call on next day on her phone number, some boys and girls were heard, which according to the maid servant, appeared to be that applicant and her husband Rajnish Kumar Singh and thus formed a view that the applicant along with coaccused Rajnish Kumar Singh and one of the person had committed the murder and concealed the dead body.

¶8

4 . In the light of the abovesaid allegations, the submission of the Counsel for the applicant is that apart from the statement made in the FIR, a story was developed by the prosecution that the deceased was killed and the body was thrown at a distinct place. The body was taken away allegedly in a car Swift Dzire. It is further argued that the owner of the car has not been made either a witness or an accused with the offence in question. He argues that the applicant was linked with the offence solely based upon the statement of the maid servant Shabnam, who alleged that the sound was that of the applicant as well as the confessional statement. No recovery shall allegedly done from the applicant. He further argues that even the cause of death could not be ascertained, thus, there is no material to link with the offence is question. The applicant is a lady and has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 03.05.2022.

¶9

5. Learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant

¶10

vehemently opposed the bail prayer by arguing that the CDR location of the mobile number of the applicant reveals that she was present in the area where the offence was allegedly committed. It is further argued that the bail application of the co-accused Varun Mishra was rejected by this Court on 18.09.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9515 of 2022 and the considering the gravity of the offence, the bail application should be rejected.

¶11

6. Considering the submissions made at the bar and the material available on record, prima facie , the applicant was linked with the offence in question based upon the statement of the maid servant, who in her statement stated that she felt that voice on phone heard by her appeared to be that of the applicant, thus, the confessional statement which has no evidenciary value, the allegation of confessional statement was not corroborated by any recovery from the applicant; the owner of the car, which was allegedly used for disposing of the body has neither been made an accused nor a witness coupled with the fact that the applicant is a lady and has no criminal antecedents and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶12

7. Let the applicant Kavita Singh be released on bail in the abovesaid first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶14

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶15

(c) 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

Order Date :- 8.2.2024

¶17

akverma

¶18

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

Kavita Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavita Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Ravish Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Ravi Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Shoaib Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. U.P. Lko. and Others

Mobin Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Adesh Kumar Yadav Alias Tillu Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Nadir Jang Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko and 3 Others