Court No. - 20
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45822 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Preeti Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Daksha Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Daksha Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri G.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
This bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.185 of 2017 under sections 302 I.P.C. , Police Station Patiyali, District Kasganj, during the pendency of trial.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the post- mortem report is in contradiction to the FIR as in FIR it is mentioned that the deceased was murdered by strangulating him but in the post-mortem report the doctor has found four injuries upon his body; witness Sukhrani wife of Tota Ram who is alleged to be an eye witness of the incident has stated before trial court contradictory statement; third witness namely Priya aged about 10 years who is elder sister of the deceased had also given contradictory statement before the trial court. It is clearly stated by her that no witness was present at the time of occurrence on the spot and that the door was shut from outside and when she entered the house she found his brother in dead condition, hence there was no eye witness of the occurrence and due to suspicion of inimical relationship, the informant has lodged the FIR against the applicant. The real fact is that the informant wanted to maintain illegal relationship with the applicant in the absence of the applicant's husband and when the applicant refused for the same, this false story has been made to falsely implicate the applicant.The applicant is not involved in any other criminal case. The applicant is absolutely innocent and is languishing in jail since 27.05.2017. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
On the other hand learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail stating that as per the FIR the informant has seen his nephew Deepu (deceased) being strangulated by the applicant and in the post-mortem report the cause of death is reported to be asphyxia as a result of smothering which version has been supported by the witness/informant in his statement, therefore, bail ought to be rejected.
Looking to the fact that the deceased has died due to smothering and the same has been stated in the FIR that he was smoothed to death by the applicant and in the examination-in-chief before the trial court in the statement the informant has supported the said version. Learned counsel for the applicant tried to take the court through cross-examination done before the trial court and suggest that there are number of discrepancies in the statement made by the said witness hence testimony could not be believed in this regard. I do not find any substance in his argument because the matter is pending before the trial court as the trial is going on.
The bail application is accordingly rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C within a further period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 AU