Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11226 of 2018 Applicant :- Km. Ranjana Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kant Pandey,Satyendra Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Km. Ranjana in connection with Case Crime No. 0506 of 2016 under Sections 147, 306, 120B IPC, P.S. Hathras Gate, District Hathras.
Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri S.A.S. Abidi, learned AGA along with Sri Vivek Dubey, learned counsel on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the case of the informant is based on an involvement of his son with the younger sister of the applicant which according to the informant had been engineered by the applicant; that this manoeuvre was done by the applicant as the prosecution would allege as a measure of reprisal against the applicant whom the first informant reported to her father has been involved with some young man of the native village of the informant; that informant's further case according to the applicant is that the applicant caused the informant's younger brother to suffer so much of mental torture capitalizing upon the involvement of her younger sister which ultimately drove him to commit suicide; that the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the entire story aforesaid is one that is based on a figment of the informant's imagination; that the first information report has been lodged after five months of occurrence under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the application for the purpose was moved after ninety days to the Magistrate; that the applicant submits that there is no tangible evidence of abetment on her part or on the part of anybody else acting at her behest; that the suicide note which is said to have been left behind by the deceased, in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, is not a genuine document, and, even otherwise read as a whole, does not disclose a case of abetment on the applicant's part; that the deceased according to the applicant committed suicide for the reasons best known to him which are not at all referable to the applicant or to any kind of relationship that is projected through the FIR giving rise to the present crime; that it is further submitted that the applicant is an unmarried girl of 26/27 years who is a student of L.L.B second year; and, that the applicant is a respectable person hailing from a good family who is in jail in the instant crime since 20.02.2018 as an under trial.
Learned Counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail with the submission that the applicant is a diabolical person who having found that applicant had informed her father about her affair in the informant's native village with a man called Hitesh made it a point of honour to punish the applicant in some manner that would cause him grave pain and irreparable loss; that therefore she induce her sister to covet the deceased by a facade and thereafter leave him jilted in love which she did precisely as bidden by the applicant; that the said relationship with the deceased having been entered into, the applicant, her sister and the other co-accused named in the FIR would mentally and psychologically harass the informant's son in diverse ways somuch so that he became a psychological wreck and that some evidence of sorts showing his involvement with the applicant's sister was also secured so as to subject the deceased to extreme oppression; that oppressed by blackmail involving his relationship to the applicant's sister, the deceased had been psychologically wrecked; and, that the applicant and her associates harassed the deceased psychologically to the point where on the fateful day he committed suicide by jumping before an on oncoming train.
It is further alleged by the learned counsel for the complainant that the suicide note left behind by the deceased, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the affidavit clearly shows that the deceased committed suicide on account of the applicant and the entire game of torture that she had contrived; and, that applicant alone abetted the suicide with her associates, the other co-accused. He further said that the suicide note is a genuine document and a part of the case diary-Police papers.
To this learned counsel for the applicant in a limited rejoinder has pointed out that the deceased passed away on 23.5.2016 whereas the suicide note shows it to be written on 24.5.2016. To that there is a further answer by the learned counsel for the complainant that in the extreme distress of the moment of suicide, it is quite likely that the deceased scribed an incorrect date on the suicide note.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the background of parties both of whom otherwise come from respectable families, in particular, the fact that at this stage it is difficult to say one way of other whether there was abetment or not, the scales equally tilted on both sides which can be a matter better left to be judged at the trial but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
It is clarified that anything said in this order will not influence the trial court in their independent appreciation of evidence that is led at the trial.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant Km. Ranjana involved in Case Crime No. 0506 of 2016 under Sections 147, 306, 120B IPC, P.S. Hathras Gate, District Hathras be released on bail on 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 will not leave the local jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Judge.
ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
iii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iv) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
v) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
vi) The applicant 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 such person from disclosing 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 complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case it is directed that the case which is said to be pending before the Magistrate and not committed to the Sessions as yet, shall be committed to the sessions within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the Magistrate concerned which shall be forwarded to the Magistrate concerned by the office through C.J.M. Hathras. The trial Court from the date of receipt of a copy of this order shall proceed with the trial on a day to day basis and conclude the same within a period of six months positively from the date of committal in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. 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 :- 28.3.2018 Deepak