Allowed

Gudiya @ Sanjana v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2024BAIL/912/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under CPL, the High Court found it fit to enlarge the accused lady on bail, noting the delay in FIR lodging, lack of recovery, and absence of investigation, despite the charge of murder (Section 302 IPC). Several conditions were imposed securing her appearance and preventing witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two surelies with conditions to not tamper with evidence or pressurize witnesses.

Gudiya @ Sanjana vs State of U.P. Thru… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11990

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 912 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Gudiya @ Sanjana Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Irfan Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

2. It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 3.7.2023 at about 11.00a.m., some altercation took place between the informant's yonger brother Alkhilesh and Gudiya Devi on some issue. Due to this dispute, the applicant along with one Bihari have murdered his brother by pressing his neck.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no investigation in this case has been done at all. It was the applicant who informed about the death of her deceased husband, which is evident from perusal of the inquest report. Still no first information report was lodged despite best efforts of the applicant. After three days delay, informant who is brother in law of the applicant in order to grab the property has lodged the first information report and has falsely implicated the applicant in connivance with the police.

¶9

The offence is alleged to have been committed on 3.7.2023, however, the first information report has been lodged on 5.7.2023 and without any investigation charge sheet has been filed on 9.7.2023, i.e. within four days. There is no recovery from the applicant. There is no eye witness of the incident. There is not even a last seen evidence. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 5.7.2023.

¶10

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant who is a lady has no criminal history, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

6. Let the applicant Gudiya alias Sanjana, involved in Case Crime No. 245 of 2023 under section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Visheshwarganj, district Bahraich, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section

¶20

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

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶22

Order Date :- 9.2.2024 kkb/

¶23

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

Gudiya @ Sanjana v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gudiya @ Sanjana v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

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

Arif Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

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

Raj Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Budhana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Balak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Ram Dayal Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.