Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30400 of 2019 Applicant :- Sulekha Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Ram (Rawat),Indra Deo Mishra,Shushil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nishant Singh, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Sulekha Yadav with a prayer to enlarge her on bail in Case Crime No. 109 of 2019, under Section 365 I.P.C., Police Station- Attarsuiya, District-Prayagraj, during the pendency of the trial.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that for the alleged incident dated 14th April, 2019, the present first information report has been lodged on 6th May, 2019 by Sunita Nishad against four named accused persons including the present applicant i.e. 22 days from the date of alleged incident for which no plausible explanation has been given which makes the prosecution case doubtful. In the first information report it has been alleged that three years before, daughter of the informant, namely, Payal has been murdered for which she has lodged a first information report and the said case is still pending wherein her mother, namely, Saroj Devi was a main witness. It is further alleged that on 14th April, 2019 her mother went to Kalyani Devi temple, when she did not return, the informant and her brother tried to search for her but she could not be traced. She suspected that all the named accused persons made her disappear and under the aforesaid suspicion, the present first information report has been lodged. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and under suspicion only she has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that except the confessional statement of co-accused Sharad @ Gappu wherein it has been stated that on 14th April, 2019 the abductee was seen with the co-accused Tinku Gupta and the applicant, there is no evidence from which it is established that the applicant is involved in the commission of the alleged offence. In view of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence, confessional statement recorded before the Police has no evidentiary value. It is next argued that earlier the informant had physical relations with the co-accused Tinku Gupta and thereafter, Tinku Gupta had established physical relations with the applicant due to which the informant was inimical to the applicant and in connection with the same, the present first information report has been lodged falsely implicating the present applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to her credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 22nd May, 2019.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the material/evidence brought on record, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 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 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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her 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 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 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.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Sushil/-