Allowed

Rinki v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Lucknow

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2024BAIL/3972/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order dealt with a bail application filed by a woman charged with murder after her son died following an altercation at her home. The court found that the proposed witnesses are formal and her release would not adversely affect the trial, granting bail subject to sureties and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail under Section 302 IPC with personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 35,000 each.

Rinki vs State of U.P. through Principal… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:63679

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3972 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rinki

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Home Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar,Amit Kumar,Chandra Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar,Ramesh Chandra Gupta

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ramesh Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent complainant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶8

In terms of the F.I.R., it was alleged that the son of the applicant aged about 24 was in affairs with the applicant and for the last four years, they were staying as husband and wife. It was also alleged that for the last so much time, they used to fight with each other and the applicant used to threaten him that in case the victim comes in the way of the life of the applicant, she would eliminate him. It was stated that on 1.6.2023 the son of the informant came alongwith applicant to the home thereafter the wife of the informant left and information was received that the son of the informant had died and his body was lying at the home. It was thus, stated that son of the informant was killed by the applicant and the applicant was seeing running from the spot by various villagers. Based upon the said, the applicant was arrested.

¶9

The cause of death as per the post mortem report is ante mortem strangulation. On record, there is confessional statement of the applicant wherein the applicant has admitted the commission of offence. The statements of the villagers who had last seen the applicant coming out of the home is

¶10

also on record.

¶11

From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent State, the prosecution intends to establish the offence against the applicant. Based upon the testimonies of as many as 13 witnesses out of which apart from the informant, there are panch gawah and the other formal witnesses.

¶12

It is argued on behalf of the applicant that the three witnesses have already been examined out of the total 13 witnesses proposed to be examined and the applicant continues to be in custody since 1.6.2023 having no criminal history, hence the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. oppose the prayer for bail by arguing that the statements of the villagers who had seen the applicant going out of the home clearly corroborates the allegations against the applicant and considering the gravity of the offence, the bail application should be rejected.

¶14

What transpires from the record is that prima facie the allegations against the applicant are proposed to be established by the testimonies of as many as 13 witnesses out of which three have already been examined.

¶15

Considering the fact that most of the witnesses in the list of the witnesses shown in the chargesheet are formal witnesses, prima there is no material on record to suggest that if the applicant is enlarged on bail can adversely affect the trial, as such the applicant who is a lady languishing in jail since 2.6.2023 having no criminal history is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant Rinki be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.229 of 2023, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Fardhan, District

¶18

Lakhimpur Kheri on her furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.35,000/- each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

Order Date :- 13.9.2024

¶23

Shukla

¶24

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

Rinki v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinki v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Lucknow

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

Ram Sumer @ Sumer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Mahesh Kumar Soni @ Mahesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Hanuman Prasad Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Vijay Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lko.

Avneesh Kumar Nishad @ Aneesh Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mustakeen Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lucknow