Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41772 of 2018 Applicant :- Anita Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the FIR lodged with inordinate delay; that as per the averments made in FIR, the deceased Neeraj had taken the grove of Devisharan on rent and Ramveer and his wife Anita were looking after the grove as his servants while Neeraj used to supervise the grove; that it is also contended in FIR that on 13.02.2018, Neeraj left for visiting the grove at about 08:00 am and when his brother Jai Prakash reached there with his meals, the applicant and her husband told that Neeraj did not come today, and on search his body was found below the cot of applicant in the room, on which, the applicant and her husband allegedly fled away, and deceased was taken to private doctor who declared him dead; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false concocted and incorrect; that it is alleged that the marriage of deceased was proposed with sister of applicant, and since he was unwilling for such marriage, he appears to have committed suicide; that the postmortem report suggests cause of death as strangulation, but possibility of his death due to hanging may not be ruled out and hyde bone may be fractured even in in rare cases of hanging; that the applicant had no motive to cause death of deceased; that the postmortem of deceased does not state even a single abrasion on the body of deceased and since deceased was young and toll person, his strangulation by applicant without any other injury was highly improbable; that the co-
accused Ramveer, husband of applicant has been exonerated and not charge sheeted; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that she will not misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 10.05.2018; that the applicant is entitled for bail in view of provisions to Section 437(1)Cr.P.C.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Anita be released on bail in Case Crime No. 35 of 2018 under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Chhattari District Bulandshahr on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
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.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 M. ARIF