Court No. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31677 of 2017 Applicant :- Sheela Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This is a second bail application of the applicant in case crime No. 414 of 2016 (Sessions Trial No. 84 of 2016), under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., police station Robertsganj, District- Sonbhadra with the prayer to enlarge her on bail.
The prosecution case as against the applicant was that the deceased had spotted the applicant in a compromising position with co-accused Mahesh Maurya and therefore to hide shame, the deceased was murdered and thereafter the body of the deceased was hanged from ceiling of house. The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence, which, till the stage of investigation, was to the effect that the deceased was seen entering the house of the co-accused and the co-accused and the applicant were seen coming out and later the body of the deceased was found hanging from the ceiling.
The case of the applicant is that, admittedly, the body of the deceased was not recovered from the house of the applicant and the witness, on whose statement, recorded during the course of investigation, the prosecution disclosed presence of the applicant in the house of co-accused Mahesh Maurya, has turned hostile during trial and has not supported the prosecution case and, therefore, since the body of the deceased has not been recovered from the house of the applicant; and the applicant is a lady, who has suffered incarceration since 29.05.2016, is entitled to bail. It has been submitted that the applicant has otherwise no previous criminal history. It has been submitted that the applicant is innocent; she has been falsely implicated; she is in jail since 29.05.2016 and, in case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant Sheela be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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;
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;
(iv) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and
(v) 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 her in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 Sunil Kr Tiwari