Allowed

Smt. Guddi v. State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC22 May 2014BA1/436/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was filed by Smt. Guddi accused under Section 328 IPC regarding poisoning on a train. Finding no specific incriminating evidence against her and considering her detention period, the single judge allowed the bail plea on a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on execution of a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount.

Smt. Guddi Vs State Of Uttarakhand — Bail and Remand | Uttarakhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Original Jurisdiction

¶2

Dated: Nainital: the 22^nd day of May, 2014

¶3

Ist Bail Application No. 436 of 2014

¶4

Order on the Bail Application: CRIMINAL SIDE

¶5

Smt. Guddi …… Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party

¶6

Mr. Shakti Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. P.S. Saun, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Brief Holder for the respondent State.

¶7

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

¶8

Applicant Smt. Guddi, who is in jail in connection with case crime no. 91 of 2013, in respect of offence punishable under Section 328 of IPC, relating to Police Station, G.R.P. Haridwar, District Haridwar has sought her release on bail.

¶9

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

¶10

An FIR was lodged against unknown man and woman on 18.09.2013, for the offence punishable under Section 328 of IPC, alleging therein, that on the selfsame day, i.e., 18.09.2013, at 03:25 P.M., the accused persons offered fruit juice to the passengers boarding the train. Two women, to whom the fruit juice was offered, became unconscious. The victims were taken to Govt. Hospital, Rishikesh.

¶11

¶12

It is not the allegation against the applicant that she looted money from the passengers on board. It is just possible that her intention might be to loot the cash and belongings of the victims, but no accusation to this effect is made in the FIR. Nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of the applicant. Applicant is in detention since 18.09.2013.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant is ready to furnish reliable sureties if she is granted bail.

¶14

Considering her period of detention and other attenuating circumstances, a case for bail is made out in favour of the present applicant.

¶15

The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Haridwar.

¶16

Dt. May 22, 2014. Negi

Smt. Guddi v. State Of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Guddi 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

M/s Hello India Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Atikurrahman and Another Vs Smt. Farha Saifi

Smt. Vidhyawati and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Om Prakash Pandey Vs Alka Pandey

Sishupal Yadav Vs District Magistrate U.s.nagar

Jitendra Kumar Gupta Vs State Of Uttarakhand