SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Naseema vs State Of U.P. on 19 November, 2019


?Court No. – 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 49163 of 2019

Applicant :- Naseema

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Akhilesh Kumar Mishra

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hitesh Pachori,Hitesh

Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Sri Sunil Kumar pandey, Advocate pointed out that his name has wrongly been shown in the list as counsel for the complainant.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR of the alleged incident was lodged against five persons including the applicant making general allegation. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not harassed or tortured the deceased. There was no dispute of demand of dowry. It has further been submitted that as per postmortem report three injuries have been found on the body of the deceased which are simple in nature. The cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained , therefore, the viscera was preserved but the viscera report has not been received till date. It has further been submitted that there is no eye witness of the alleged incident.The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. The applicant is a lady. There is no criminal history of the applicant and is in jail since 22.7.2019.

Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail and argued that at the time of the postmortem three injuries have been found on the body of the deceased which shows that prior to the alleged incident the applicant and other co-accused have committed marpeet with the deceased and they forcibly administered poison to the deceased. In first information report it has been mentioned that Rs. one lac, fifty thousand were demanded by the accused persons out of which fifty thousand rupees was paid by the informant. The applicant has committed the alleged offence, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

Let the applicant Naseema involved in Case Crime No. 182 of 2019, under Sections 498A, Section304B,Section323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Afzalgarh, District Bijnor 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:-

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidences.

2. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate with the trial.

3. The applicant will appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

Order Date :- 19.11.2019




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation