Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46505 of 2017 Applicant :- Smt. Sadhana Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jadu Nandan Yadav,Arimardan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the State in Court is taken on record.
This is an application for bail filed on behalf of Smt. Sadhana in Case Crime No.388 of 2017, under Section 306 I.P.C., P.S. Talgram, District Kannauj.
Heard Sri Pranvesh, Advocate holding brief of Sri J.N. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that she is the widow of late Ranveer @ Kanhaiya, the victim of the crime in connection whereof she is detained in jail; that learned counsel for the applicant submits that a G.D. Entry No.24 dated 18.12.2017 was made in the General Diary of P.S. Talgram, District Kannauj where the police at the instance of the father of the deceased (father-in-law of the applicant and also the deponent here) has recorded the fact that Ranveer @ Kanhaiya on account of insanity and in a drunken state has committed suicide by hanging himself from a Jamun tree and that he was ill since four months past; that on the basis of the aforesaid G.D. Entry inquest and autopsy were done both on 18.07.2017; that the autopsy report shows the cause of death to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging; that the mother of the deceased (the applicant's mother-in-law) lodged a First Information Report on 12.08.2017 against the applicant giving rise to Case Crime No.388 of 2017, under Section 306 IPC, P.S. Talgram, District Kannauj 24 days after the occurrence alleging in substance that her son, that is to say, the applicant's husband committed suicide on account of the fact that the applicant was carrying on with co-accused Jairam @ Pappu and thus both had abetted his suicide; that it is submitted that the information given by the applicant's father-in-law, the deceased's father to the police promptly after the occurrence on 18.07.2017 is a correct account of the unfortunate happening and that the FIR giving rise to the present crime is absolutely a baseless and concocted version brought in 24 days after the occurrence in order to disinherit the applicant of her husband's property or otherwise out of a misplaced vengeance; that there is no evidence of abetment as such available or forthcoming against the applicant; that even assuming the assertions in the FIR to be correct the mere fact that the deceased suspected the applicant to be indulging in infidelity is by itself no instigation, aid or conspiracy that would constitute abetment so as to attract a charge under Section 306 IPC; that the applicant's father-in-law who is the deceased's father has taken a truthful stand whereas the FIR lodged by the deceased's mother is utter falsehood; and, that the applicant who is a respectable woman with no criminal history is in jail since 20.08.2017.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail with the submission that it is a case where the police after the investigation collected evidence sufficient to chargesheet the applicant which when considered does not entitle the applicant to the concession of bail.
Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the evidence appearing on record, in particular, the G.D. Entry about the occurrence made promptly at the behest of the deceased's father and the fact that the present crime has been registered 24 days after the occurrence, this Court, without expressing any opinion on merits, finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant Smt. Sadhana involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 Shahroz