Court No. - 30
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45683 of 2021 Applicant :- Manju Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.K. Shahi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Avinash Mani Tripathi
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard Sri R.K. Shahi, learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri S.B. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Avinash Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0094 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 308 I.P.C., at Police Station Ahirauli Bazar, District Kushinagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the accused- applicants are lady and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is a cross case in which both the parties have sustained injuries but it is not clear as to who is the aggressor. It is argued that general role has been assigned to all the accused persons for assaulting the injured persons. He further submits that the first information report of the alleged incident has been lodged with delay of 3 days but there is no satisfactory explanation of such delay. It is next contended that the applicants are languishing in jail since 8.10.2021. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer of the applicants but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, 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 applicants Manju Devi and Indu Devi, who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.
(iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them 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 applicants.
In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021 Md Faisal