Allowed

Smt. Pinki Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2025BAIL/2041/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application in a murder case after rejection of an earlier one; applicant argued key witnesses had turned hostile and no charges were framed under the I.T. Act. The court granted bail on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, with conditions regarding trial attendance and witness dates.

Smt. Pinki Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15005

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2041 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Pinki Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Suryavanshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today in court is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this court on 28.08.2023. It is submitted that after rejection of first bail application, new cause of action has arose.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.125 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Jaidpur, District Barabanki.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that PW1 Ashok Kumar is the elder brother of the deceased and he has not supported the prosecution case before the trial court. He has deposed that on the basis of hearsay he named the applicant and he did not see the incident. Similarly, the other witness namely Deepak PW-4 has also not supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that charge sheet has not been filed under the provisions of Information & Technology Act, (I.T. Act) 2000. Counsel submitted that at the moment after looking to the statements of PW1 and PW4 and particularly the fact that charges are not framed under I.T. Act, the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 21.04.2022.

¶10

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that the charges are not framed under I.T. Act. He also does not dispute the fact that PW1 elder brother of deceased and PW 4 witness have not supported the prosecution case.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the argument that charges are not framed under I.T Act and the argument that PW1 brother of the

¶12

deceased and Deepak (witness) PW4 have not supported the prosecution story rather they have deposed before the court below that they had not seen the incident, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant, Smt. Pinki Verma, be released on bail in the above case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

(i) 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.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶18

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.3.2025

¶20

Pks

¶21

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Pinki Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pinki Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. 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

Abdul Haque vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sanjeev Vishwas vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Akhilesh Kumar Singh vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Shivam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Pinki Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko