Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PARVATI AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Parvati And Another v. State Of U.P - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 7030 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 7799 (26 April 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

Accused applicants Parvati wife of Prithvi Raj Singh and Kalloo son of Prithvi Raj Singh have prayed for release on bail in Case Crime No. 477 of 2006 (S.T. No. 473 of 2006), under Section 304-B IPC, P. S. Bilsanda, District Pilibhit.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that deceased (Smt. Nanhi Devi) was married with Bhagwan Singh son of applicant no. 1 four years prior to the incident. The deceased was physically handicapped and accused persons used to demand motorcycle and when it could not be given she was harassed. Informant tried to explain things but the accused did not stop her harassment and finally she was killed on 4.7.2006. Information was given to the informant by some one on phone an then he came there and  saw that his daughter was lying dead in the house of the accused persons.

Post mortem report shows that she received eight injuries and cause of death is asphyxia due to anti mortem strangulation. There were several contusions and abrasions on her  body including head, face, left shoulder and right elbow joint, knee joint and buttock.

Learned counsel for the applicants has further contended that deceased had left an infant who is with the applicant no. 1 in the Jail.

Learned A.G.A. has contended that the post mortem report show that accused persons brutally killed the deceased.

In the circumstances of the case, but without prejudice to the merit of the case, applicant no. 1 is entitled to bail and applicant no. 2 is not entitled to bail at this stage.

Let the applicant no. 1 involved in above case crime 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.

Applicant no. 1 shall furnish an undertaking before the court concerned that she will not indulge in any criminal or antisocial activity and will not cause either any direct or indirect threat or any physical violence to the complainant and the witnesses and his family members and shall also not tamper with the evidence.  If any such report is made by any of the above persons either to the court or the police, it shall be properly inquired into and if any substance therein is found, it shall be open for the court below to take necessary legal action against the applicant no. 1.

The prayer for bail of applicant no. 2 Kalloo is hereby refused.

Dated: 26.4.2007

RKS/7030/07


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.