AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 227 wordsTarun Agarwala, J.—The first bail application was rejected on merit by an order dated 18.05.2011. This is the second bail application. A perusal of the First Information Report indicates that the applicant, who is the mother-in-law, was also named along with her husband, son and daughters. The daughters of the applicant have subsequently been discharged and have not been named in the charge sheet. There is No. specific role against the applicant, but she has been named along with others. It is alleged that the applicant has two minor daughters aged 13 years and 10 years and that all the family members are behind bars pursuant to the alleged incident and there is No. one to look after them.
In the light of the fact that the applicant is a lady and that she has two minor daughters, which fact has not been denied by the State, and without commenting anything further on the merits of the case, the Court finds that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage.
The second bail application is allowed. Let the applicant be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 4 of 2011, under Sections 498(A), 304(B), 120(B)/302 I.P.C., P.S. Dwarahat, District Almora, on executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned.