Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20207 of 2018 Applicant :- Geeta Alias Geeta Kumari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No287 of 2016 (N.C.R. No. 192 of 2016) under Sections 323, 504. 304 I.P.C.,Police Station Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
According to prosecution case, First Information Report was lodged against three accused, namely Bhaju Ram, Mani Bhaskar and Smt. Geeta, wife of Mani Bhaskar alleging that on 29.06.2016 they assaulted Ranjit. He received one head injury and died.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the case of the present applicant is identical to co-accused Bhanju Ram @ Baju Ram who has been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.11.2016 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35825 of 2016, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co- accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail.
The applicant is a lady and general role has been assignded against the applicant; there is a cross case registered as N.C.R. no. 192 of 2016; the applicant has also received injury and that injury has not been explained. At this stage it is not possible to decide who is the aggressor.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the family of the deceased and the family of the accused who are brothers fought with each other over an issue of partition between them. N.C.R. has been registered by both the sides. Learned counsel submits that three persons sustained injuries including the accused, who was hit on the head.
It is pointed out that death of the deceased was due to a solitary injury caused on his head whereas three persons are shown to be accused. It is stated that there is no specific role assigned to the applicant. His submission is that it was a cross case and the issue as to who was the assailant is a question of evidence which can be gone into at the stage of trial. It is argued that the applicant, otherwise, is a peace loving person, who has no previous criminal history and is languishing in jail since 11.4.2018 (one and half months), having no criminal history and has been falsely implicated and, in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, but could not point out anything material to the contrary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant Geeta @ Geeta Kumari be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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 him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 OP