Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43211 of 2016 Applicant :- Smt. Geeta Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ratan Deep Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,A.K.Sukla,Ashutosh Shukla,Uma Shanker Mishra
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Counter affidavit filed in court today, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Nagendra Singh learned A.G.A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 949 of 2016, under Sections 302, 201, 363 I.P.C., P.S. Mugrabadshahpur, District Jaunpur.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order.
On an earlier occasion an order was passed on 31.01.2017 seeking information as to whether the sons of the applicant have surrendered or not. Today it has been informed that the sons are not wanted in any case and the police is not seeking their arrest.
The contention is that the police is not on lookout for the two sons, therefore, there is no reason for the sons of the applicant to abscond; as far as the present applicant is concerned the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. which was lodged against unknown persons, subsequently he has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of suspicion along with his two sons Shanti Bhushan Shukla and Chandra Bhushan Shukla.
Learned counsel for the complainant contends that though it is not being disputed that the family of the applicant and the family of the deceased are next door neighbours, however, the said child who is the victim was playing with the children of the applicant in front of the house and the same constitutes the last seen evidence in the present case.
It has been further submitted that there no is eye-witness account present which may show active participation of the applicant in the alleged crime; even though the dog squad which was brought by the police did not went up to the place from where the body of the deceased was recovered and they stopped at the door of the applicant and thus it has been contended that solely on the fact that the dog squad reached the said place adjacent to the house of the applicant as well as the house of the informant, it is not a sufficient ground for implicating the applicant. It has been further submitted that thereafter an F.I.R. has been lodged and recovery has been made at the pointing out of the applicant which is in the form of a 'Baniyan' from the house of the applicant, to which reply has been given that there is no evidence to the recovery of the said 'Baniyan' recovery of which is false and fabricated. The learned counsel for the applicant further contends that there was no occasion to keep the 'Baniyan' recovery of which even if true in the house of the applicant whereas the body was found somewhere else. It has been further informed that as far as 'Baniyan' is concerned there is no forensic report till date which may show that the said Baniyan belongs to the deceased. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.10.2016 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant and submitted that the investigation is now complete and charge sheet has already been submitted. No investigation is now left.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no purpose would be served in keeping the woman in jail any longer. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Smt. Geeta Devi involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on her executing a personal bond 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, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such 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 learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex 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.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 19.4.2017 A. Tripathi