Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19394 of 2017 Applicant :- Asha Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Kumar,Bansh Narain Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail filed on behalf of Asha Ram in Case Crime No. 906 of 2016, under Section 302 I.P.C, P.S. Loni Border, District- Ghaziabad.
Heard Sri Adarsh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.A.S. Abdi, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record.
The submission of Sri Adarsh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant made with great persuasion is to the effect that the complainant who is a rustic women, has affixed her thumb mark to a pre-scribed first information report implicating her husband in the murder of her daughter, the contents of which she never understood and the same were never read to her before, she affixed her thumb mark on the same. Learned counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the dock evidence of P.W.-1 where the first informant appearing as a witness for the prosecution disowned the contents of the FIR blaming it on her abject illiteracy; that her thumb mark in FIR has been made on the suggestion of natives of the village; that in her deposition, there was no reason to the husband to have done his daughter to death; that she has also denied the alleged of bad character of her daughter of which mention is made in the FIR; that Sri Adarsh Kumar has made much of the fact that it is a case where admittedly, no one has seen anything and it rests entirely on circumstantial evidence; that expanding his arguments he submits that the contents of the FIR also do not say that the first informant saw her husband do her daughter to death; that in fact a reading of the FIR does not disclose as to how the informant has inferred that the father had killed their daughter; that two witnesses of fact have been examined in the dock who have not supported the prosecution case; and, that applicant is a respectable man with no criminal history who is languishing in jail since 26.10.2016.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail with the submission that the FIR which has been lodged promptly carries an accurate version of the occurrence and cannot be now disowned by the first informant. The first informant has disowned the contents of the FIR as she is the wife of the accused and bearing in mind her own future she has turned hostile. The scribe of the FIR has not given a good explanation regarding the drafting of the FIR the author of which has disowned her version. However, the learned A.G.A. does not dispute the fact that it is a case that rests on circumstantial evidence and also admitted that no one has actually seen the occurrence.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegation, the gravity of offence, in particular the fact that it rests entirely on circumstantial evidence that no one has seen the occurrence; that the FIR also does not disclose on what basis, the informant has reported the applicant to the police; and that now going by the dock evidence prima facie, the evidence in support of the prosecution is weak but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
It is made clear that anything said in this order will not affect the assessment of evidence by the trial court as led before it and evaluation of the same by the trial judge independently who would be absolutely free to reach his own conclusions.
Let the applicant Asha Ram involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on executing personal bonds and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
(v) The applicant will not leave the local jurisdiction of the court below during the pendency of the trial.
(vi) The applicant will attend the court concerned on every first Monday of the week commencing on 10.04.2018. In case, the first Monday falls on public holiday, the applicant would attend the next working day of the court.
(vii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded strictly and positively within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar V. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence positively.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Siddhant Sahu