Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25802 of 2018 Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumari @ Ram Sakhi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ray Sahab Yadav,Kailash Singh Yadav,Shiv Shankar Kaithal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yashpal Yadav
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Suneel Yadav holding brief of Sri Yashpal Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant – Sarvesh Kumari @ Ram Sakhi with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.177 of 2017, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Amrahat, District Kanpur Dehat.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is next argued that on 16.12.2017 upon information of village Chaukidar Balwan Singh F.I.R. was lodged about recovery of dead body of a girl near the bank of Yamuna river with the allegations that informant identified deceased as Guddan who was living in the village at the place of her Mausa Shiv Kumar @ Chintu. The deceased Guddan is daughter of sister of applicant, namely, Rama Devi. The applicant was not aware about the love affairs of deceased with one Deepu (deceased). As per version of FIR, since the members of family of girl were not ready for their marriage they appears to have committed murder of Deepu as well as their girl Guddan and thrown their bodies on abandoned places. It is argued that applicant never opposed the relationship of deceased Deepu and Guddan and he had no motive to cause death either of Deepu or of Guddan. There is no independent witness; that as per post-mortem report of Deepu dated 13.12.2017 cause of death was asphyxia as a result of throttling while in post- mortem report of Guddan cause of death has been mentioned as anti-mortem injuries including the incised wounds over chest and the death of Deepu is alleged to have occurred about 3 days back while of Guddan about 4-5 days back, respectively from the date of their post-mortem on 13.12.2017 and 15.12.2017. The case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no evidence against the applicant. No incriminating article has been recovered from the applicant. Co-accused Rajesh, father of deceased Guddan and Shiv Kumar @ Chintu have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 18.4.2019, 23.4.2019 and 24.07.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.14151, 16558 of 2019 and 2476 and 2491 of 2019 respectively. Accordingly, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. It is next contended that the applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he is languishing in jail since 24.12.2017. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the material/evidence brought on record, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is 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 him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019
Anand Sri./-