Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Smt Sheesham Madesiya vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|13 September, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 59
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4496 of 2018 Appellant :- Smt. Sheesham Madesiya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Akash Deep Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dilendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
As per office report dated 12.09.2018, notice upon the informant has been duly served.
Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned counsel for the informant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent and perused the paper book.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been filed challenging the order dated 21.07.2018 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Court No. 3, Deoria, in Bail Application No. 69 of 2018 (Smt. Sheesham Madesiya Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 100 of 2018, under Sections 302, 120B, 201 I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act, P.S. Madanpur, District Deoria, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
As per prosecution case, deceased was taken on motorcycle by the nominated persons; body of the deceased was found under the bridge of Semra river bank; during investigation, name of the nominated persons were dropped; appellant has been implicated on the basis of C.D.R.; postmortem examination report shows injuries by blunt object, alleged to have been caused by co-accused Kanhaiya, Sonu Bullu and Kisan; the role assigned to the applicant is that on her call, the deceased went out and was killed.
It is urged that apart from the C.D.R., there is no other evidence to link the appellant with the alleged offence; she has a infant child, she is languishing in jail since 21.06.2018, having no criminal antecedent; there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if she is enlarged on bail, she will never misuse her liberty and will co-operate in the trial, therefore, this appeal may be allowed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the fact as argued by learned counsel for the appellant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance hence, appeal as also bail application filed before the court below are allowed, order dated 21.07.2018 is hereby set aside.
Let appellant, Smt. Sheesham Madesiya, 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 with the following conditions:
1. The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, if 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;
2. The appellant 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;
3. In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant 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.
4. The appellant 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 13.9.2018 Mukesh Kr.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Smt Sheesham Madesiya vs State Of U P And Another

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
13 September, 2018
Judges
  • Suneet Kumar
Advocates
  • Akash Deep Srivastava