Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Priyanka Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.
1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 09.10.2024 in Case Crime No.373 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 61(2) (ka), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short B.N.S), Police Station-Sandana, District-Sitapur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as she has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the F.I.R.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards impugned first information report which was lodged on 07.10.2024 at about 02.45 PM for the alleged incident occurred on 04/05.10.2024 PM without explaining the delay in lodging the same. In the impugned first information report, no allegation of any nature whatsoever has been levelled against the present applicant, who is the wife of the deceased. The informant of the present case is the father of the deceased. The allegation has been levelled against four accused, name
Bail may be granted when the applicant is not named in the FIR, lacks a criminal history, and demonstrates willingness to cooperate in trial proceedings.
The court established that contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements and the applicant's lack of criminal history justified the granting of bail.
Bail may be granted when allegations lack sufficient evidence and the accused have no prior criminal history, subject to conditions to prevent misuse.
Unexplained delays in filing FIRs can undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case, warranting bail for the accused.
The presumption of innocence and the right to liberty under Article 21 necessitate granting bail unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.
The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for abetment of suicide; clear evidence of incitement is required.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
