Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1618 of 2019 Applicant :- Leelawati Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Shukla,Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is not named in F.I.R.; that as per prosecution case, a headless body of a boy was found at south-west corner of village in west of Panchayat Bhawan, of which intimation was given by Village Pradhan Shadusaran Pandey at P.S. Kaptanganj on 24.3.2018, upon which F.I.R. was registered on 28.3.2018; that after preparation of inquest report of deceased on 25.3.2018, head of deceased was found on 27.3.2018 in the field of Jhinku Nishad and upon post mortem of body on 28.3.2018, his death was opined on account of ante mortem incised wounds over head about 3-5 days before autopsy; that on 1.4.2018 police informer pointed finger of doubt against applicant and co- accused persons expecting deceased to be Vikas Chaudhary, on account of love affair between daughter of applicant and Vikas Chaudhary; that same day body of deceased is alleged to have been identified by brother of deceased, who moved an application pointing finger against applicant and statements of brother, mother, mama and mausi of deceased, were recorded to the effect that deceased left for earning his livelihood at Hyderabad on 14.3.2018, after which his phone was responding switched off and his dead body was recovered on 24.3.2018; that upon arrest of applicant, her confessional statement was recorded in police custody, which is not admissible in evidence; that recovery of Gadasa (sharp edged weapon), and shoes and a bag of deceased from co-accused Shesh Nath in company of applicant, has been falsely planted, of which there is no independent witness; that mere fact that daughter of applicant and deceased were having telephonic talks does not give any motive to applicant to cause death of Vikas Chaudhary; that applicant neither committed death of deceased nor caused any injuries to him; that applicant has no criminal history; that case of applicant is distinguishable from Shesh Nath; that applicant undertakes that she will not misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 2.4.2018.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Leelawati Devi be released on bail in Case Crime No.111 of 2018, S.T. No.372 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Kaptanganj, District Kushinagar on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that she is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 Tamang