This second bail application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 216 of 2015, u/s 306 I.P.C., P.S.- Barasathi, District- Jaunpur. The first bail application was rejected by Hon'ble Aditya Nath Mittal, J. on 17.7.2015 as not pressed.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
Perused the record.
Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that post mortem report of the deceased indicates that the deceased has died as a result of ante mortem hanging and obviously she has died as result of commission of suicide. Further submission is that there is no other mark of injury found on the person of the deceased except the ligature mark, which could indicate that any kind of violence or cruelty had been committed upon her before her death. It was also submitted that according to the F.I.R. version itself, the deceased lived along with her husband Dinesh Kumar separately. Submission is that the the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and had nothing to do with the domestic quarrels of the deceased. It has also been submitted that the allegations of committing the murder of the deceased as has been made in the F.I.R. stands completely falsified by the findings of the post portem report which confirms the commission of suicide. Submission is that though the allegation made against the applicant is that the applicant was feeling jealous with the deceased and her husband and that is why the deceased was killed but it may be seen that the deceased had got marriage with her husband some 12 years back and had four children and lived separately and there was no occasion for the applicant, who herself is an old lady, to be jealous with her own son. Submission is that there is no tangible evidence to connect the applicant with the commission of crime and the facts and circumstances collected by the investigating officer are far short of proving any abetment or instigation done by the applicant which could have resulted in the commission of suicide by the deceased. Much emphasis was laid by the counsel on the period of detention and it has been pointed out that the applicant has spent more than a year in jail and she is languishing behind the bars since 21.5.201 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that she is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make herself available before the court whenever required.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial 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- Chanara @ Chandrawati, involved in Case Crime No. 216 of 2015, u/s 306 I.P.C., P.S.- Barasathi, District- Jaunpur, be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-
(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and her personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 26.7.2016 Naresh