Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2063 of 2016 Applicant :- Smt. Indrawati And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar,Vinod Kumar Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed in the Court today is kept on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicants who are involved in Case Crime No. 206 of 2015, under Sections 323, 326(A) and 302 I.P.C., P.S. Sikariganj, District-Gorakhpur and are in jail since 18.12.2015, are seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant no. 1, Indrawati is the mother-in-law and applicant no. 2, Sangeeta Devi is the sister-in-law (jethani) of the deceased-Nirmawati. He next submitted that all the three witnesses of fact examined by the prosecution during the trial including the informant, father of the deceased and brother of the deceased have failed to support the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. Moreover, there are material contradictions in the statements of the deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and her dying declaration with regard to the role of the applicant no. 2, Sangeeta Devi. He next submitted that although, the applicants who have no criminal antecedents to their credit are in jail since 18.12.2015 are entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the their trial.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the deceased in her dying declaration has specifically assigned the role of setting her ablaze to her husband, her mother-in-law, applicant no. 1, Indrawati and her father-in-law, Bal Kishan. The role of setting her ablaze which she has attributed to the applicant no. 2, Sangeeta Devi in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is that of giving matchbox to her mother-in-law while in her dying declaration she stated that on the asking of her husband applicant no. 2, Sangeeta Devi had brought the cane containing kerosene oil from her house. He lastly submitted that the trial of the applicants is on the verge of the conclusion and in case the applicants are released on bail at this stage of the trial by this Court after recording a prima facie finding in their favour the same may irretrievably prejudice the prosecution case at the trial and hence the applicants prayer for bail at this belated stage is liable to be rejected.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record, I am of the view that the prayer for bail of the applicant no. 1, Indrawati is liable to be rejected while that of applicant no. 2, Sangeeta Devi is liable to be granted.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the prayer for bail moved on behalf of the applicant no. 1, Indrawati is refused while applicant no. 2, Sangeeta Devi 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 in Case Crime No. 206 of 2015, under Sections 323, 326(A) and 302 I.P.C., P.S. Sikariganj, District-Gorakhpur with the following conditions:-
(a) The applicant no. 2, Sangeeta Devi shall attend the court according to the conditions of the bond executed by her.
(b) The applicant no. 2, Sangeeta Devi shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
The bail application on behalf of applicant no. 1, Indrawati is rejected.
Subject to aforesaid observations/directions, this application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 SA