Allowed

Ankhu Alias Amrita v. State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC10 Mar 2014BA1/1523/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttar Pradesh granted bail to the applicant, convicted under Section 302 IPC for alleged murder involving poisoning. The court noted inconsistencies in prosecution testimony and lack of forensic proof, concluding that a bail case was made out.

What did the court decide?

The accused-applicant is released on bail having executed a personal bond and furnishing two sureties.

Ankhu Alias Amrita Vs State Of Uttarakhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Uttarakhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated : Nainital the 10^th March, 2014

¶3

First Bail Application No.1523 of 2013 Order on the bail application of accused

¶4

CRIMINAL SIDE

¶5

Ankhu alias Amrita … Applicant

¶6

versus

¶7

State of Uttarakhand … Respondent

¶8

Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Brief Holder for the respondent State.

¶9

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

¶10

The applicant seeks bail in connection with Case Crime no.3 of 2013, under Section 302 IPC, Revenue Police Tyuni, District Dehradun.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the grounds taken in the bail application and perused the documents on record.

¶12

According to the FIR, in the intervening night of 17/18.05.2013 the informant’s wife was beaten by Naani @ Lalita. Thereafter, Naani’s mother Ankhu also assaulted her. The victim was made to consume poison, as a result of which, she died in C.H.C., Tyuni. Victim’s husband (informant) was away from his house. The victim died on 17.05.2013. The FIR was lodged on 18.05.2013. When the inquest of dead body of the deceased was conducted on 17.05.2013, it was found that she did not sustain any

¶13

-2-

¶14

injury. According to the portmortem report, cause of death could not be astertained and viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. Victim was aged about 30 years.

¶15

Prosecution relied upon the statements of Anjali, Khem Bahadur, Ashu and Vimla recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Khem Bahadur stated that he did not see the quarrel taking place between Naani and Sunita. He did not see Naani and Ankhu administering poison to the victim. So was the case of Vimal, who did not see anybody administering poison to the victim. Anjali, aged about 7 years, stated that Naani and her mother picked up quarrel with the victim, both assaulted her and perhaps made her to consume poison. Ashu stated that a scuffle took place between victim and Naani in the presence of present applicant. A quarrel took place between Ramesh and the present applicant prior to this incident. She did not see anybody administering poison to the victim. Thus, the story of assault was negatived in the inquest report, as well as in the postmortem report. Nobody saw as to who administered the poison to the victim. Applicant is in jail since 02.10.2013.

¶16

Considering the above facts and circumstances, a case of bail is made out in favour of the present applicant. The bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M., Dehradun.

¶17

Dated 10^th March, 2014 Rawat

Ankhu Alias Amrita v. State Of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankhu Alias Amrita v. State Of Uttarakhand

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

Similar cases

Inam Vs Ashraf

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

Saurabha Lal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

Sher Mohammad @ Shera Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Satyendra Kumar Bhatnagar Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Anshul Pant @ Virendra Singh @ Bablu@ Vijay Goswami @diwan Singh Real Name Hansraj Giri Goswami Vs State Of Uttarakhand