Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45560 of 2018 Applicant :- Sujita Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Sujita seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 459 of 2018, under Sections 306 I.P.C., Police Station-Bakhira, District-Sant Kabir Nagar during the pendency of the trial of the above mentioned case crime number.
From the record, it transpires that the marriage of the applicant Sujita was solemnized with Pawan Kumar on 8.6.2018 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. Just after the expiry of a period of a little more than two months from the date of the marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 3.9.2018, in which the husband of the present applicant died in mysterious circumstances. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 03.09.2018 on the information given by the father of the deceased. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the cause of death of the deceased was characterized as suicidal. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 03.09.2018. Apart from the ligature mark, another ante mortem external injury was found on the body of the deceased, which is contusion 3.0 cm x 2.0 cm on the left parietal region of the skull and underlined haemotoma was found to be present. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 5.9.2018 by the brother of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 459 of 2018, under Sections 306 I.P.C., Police Station-Bakhira, District-Sant Kabir Nagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R., three persons, namely, Sujita, Ghisiyawan and Ghanshyam were nominated as named accused. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. has submitted a charge-sheet dated 16.10.2018 against all the three named accused. What has happened subsequent to the submission of the charge sheet dated 16.10.2018 has neither been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the present bail application, nor the same has been disclosed at the time of hearing of the present bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the wife of the deceased. The applicant was married to the deceased on 8.6.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to her credit except the present one. The applicant is in Jail since 29.9.2018. It is next submitted that the proof of the charge under section 306 IPC is subject to trial evidence. Upto this stage, there is no such evidence on the record on the basis of which it can be said that the applicant has abetted, conspired or instigated in the commission of the alleged crime. It is thus urged that there is no abetment on the part of the present applicant in terms of section 306 IPC. In the light of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant being a lady is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant is a charge sheeted accused and therefore, the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual and legal submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant-Sujita be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under section 229-A I.P.C..
(iii) 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.
(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 HSM