Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37689 of 2020 Applicant :- Anita Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Hardev Singh,Ali Hasan,Ramesh Chandra Agrahari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Anita, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 219 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304, 342, 323, 506 IPC, registered at P.S. Kerakat, District Jaunpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the devrani of the deceased Smt. Deepa. It is argued that the trial in the present case has started in which Dashrath Chauhan the first informant was examined as PW-1 who stated that his daughter caught fire while cooking food after which her husband admitted in private hospital. It is argued that Vinod Chauhan and Ravish Chauhan were examined as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively before the trial court who have been declared hostile. Even Dashrath Chauhan has been declared hostile by the trial court. It is argued that Dashrath Chauhan PW-1 has in his cross examination stated that on the day of the incident, the applicant was present in her maternal house. It is argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that although there is a dying declaration of the deceased but general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is further argued that co-accused Kanhaiya Lal Chauhan, the father-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.12.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 51577 of 2019 (Kanhaiya Lal Chauhan Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. The applicant is a lady and she is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 34 of the affidavit and is in jail since 30.10.2019.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and there is a role assigned. Even in the dying declaration of the deceased, there is a role assigned to the applicant along with other co-accused persons.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is a lady. She is a devrani of the deceased. In the dying declaration there are general and omnibus allegations against the applicant. First informant, the brother and uncle of the deceased were examined as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 respectively before the trial court who have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant Anita, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)