Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2472 of 2018 Applicant :- Krishnawati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mr Rajendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.204 of 2016 u/s 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chakiya District Chandauli. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2017.
This is the second bail application on behalf of the mother-in-law. The second bail application is being pressed on the ground that the applicant, who is the woman and has no previous criminal history and in jail since 15.10.2016. Learned AGA has drawn the attention of the Court to the dying declaration of the deceased, wherein the role has been assigned to the present applicant- mother-in-law and the husband.
At this stage, counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to a question-answer, certified copy of which has been produced before this court today and is taken on record, with the contention that the record of the case has been burnt on account of fire which had taken place in the District Court. He has further submitted that in view of the fact that the original record has already been burnt and there is no likelihood of trial being concluded in near future and the applicant is a woman with no previous criminal history. She may be released on bail. The further contention is that the applicant has participated with co-accused in the trial.
It is further informed that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 have been examined subsequent to the rejection of first bail application and they all have been declared hostile.
It has been lastly contended that applicant is in jail since 15.10.2016 with no criminal history and in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse liberty of bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant.
In view of the aforesaid subsequent development and the fact that applicant is in jail since 15.10.2016 with no criminal history, 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 Krishnawati involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his 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 expeditiously, 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 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, 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 :- 27.7.2018 Abhishek