Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is married Nanad of deceased. She has falsely been implicated in the present case. There was no dispute of demand of dowry. The applicant has not harassed or tortured to the deceased. There is general allegation against the applicant. No specific role has been assigned to her. It has further been submitted that the applicant is not beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry. No dying declaration of the deceased was recorded. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant and she is in jail since 01.11.2015.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Ranjita @ Rangeeta involved in Case Crime No.164 of 2015, Under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and cooperate with the trial.
3. The applicant will appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.
In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 29.2.2016 Jitendra