Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43795 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Kunja Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharm Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajendra Kumar Sonker
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Dharm Singh Parmar, the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sonkar, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Smt. Kunja seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 147 of 2018, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station-Kuraha, District-Hamirpur, during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Anil. From the aforesaid wedlock, four children, namely, Priya-aged about 12 years, Harshit-aged about 10 years, Mayank-aged about 8 years and Kajal-aged about six years are said to be born. However, unfortunately the husband of the present applicant committed suicide on 29.06.2018. The information of the same was communicated to the concerned Police Station by the brother of the deceased, namely, Vikas and the said information was entered in the General Diary of the Police Station concerned vide G. D. Entry No. 39. On the basis of the aforesaid information, the inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 29.06.2018. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of deceased was said to be suicidal. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on the next date, i.e., 30.06.2018 by the brother of the deceased, namely, Vikas, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 0147 of 2018, under Sections 364, 302 I.P.C. and Sections 3 (2) (V) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Kuraha, District-Hamirpur.
In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons, namely, Rinku, Savitri-wife of the deceased, Kunja (the applicant herein) and Lakhan-Mama of Rinju were nominated as named accused. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 30.06.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the death of the deceased was on account of asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. Except for the ligature mark, no other external ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. has submitted a charge-sheet dated 19.07.2018 against all the named accused. The applicant Smt. Kunja was charge-sheeted under Section 306 I.P.C., whereas the other named accused have been charge- sheeted under Section 306 I.P.C. and 3 (2) (V) SC/ST Act. Upon submission of the aforesaid charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by the court concerned and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly Session Trial No. 711 of 2018 (State Vs. Rinku and others) came to be registered, which is now said to be pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-II/ Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Hamirpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. The applicant is in Jail since 03.07.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to her credit except the present one. No other external injury was found on the body of the deceased except the ligature mark. It is next submitted that from the wedlock of the applicant and the deceased four children namely, Priya-aged about 12 years, Harshit-aged about 10 years, Mayank-aged about 8 years and Kajal-aged about six years are said to be born, who are still minors. It is then contended that the applicant has been charge-sheeted under Section 306 I.P.C but the proof of charge under Section 306 I.P.C. is subject to trial evidence. He therefore submits that from the statement of the witnesses, whose testimony have been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the cause can be said to be in-existence for commission of the alleged crime but that certainly will not amount to abetment in terms of Section 306 I.P.C. as there is no element of aid, conspiracy or instigation on the part of the present applicant. It is thus submitted that considering the fact that the applicant is a lady and there are four minor children of the applicant, who have been deprived of parental care and love, the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sonkar, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that the applicant is a charge-sheeted accused and the independent witnesses as well as the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the applicant have clearly implicated the present applicant as the accused behind the occurrence. It is thus urged that the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sonkar, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and upon consideration of the evidence on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed.
Let the applicant-Smt. Kunja be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under section 229-A I.P.C.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 her in accordance with law.
(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 YK