Anita v. State of U.P

Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29227 of 2022 Applicant :- Anita Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gautam,Manoj Kumar Singh,Mohd. Shamim,Narendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nagendra Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Siddharth,J. List has been revised. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Nagendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by coordinate Bench of this Court on 29.11.2021. Since more than two years have been passed the matter has been placed before this Court by the order of Hon'ble The Chief Justice. There is allegation against the applicant regarding causing of murder of one 19 years old boy. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been implicated on the allegation that she is maternal aunt (mami) of the deceased and was having illicit relationship with him. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. The applicant has been implicated on the basis of planted recovery of clothes. The applicant is a woman and entitled to benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. She is in jail since 30.12.2020 and has no criminal history to her credit. Out of 12 only 1 prosecution witness has been examined till date. This is the first implication of the applicant. Trial will take time to conclude. On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, Anita, involved in Case Crime No. 370 of 2020, under Sections-302/34, 201 IPC, Police Station-Nebua, Naurangia, District-Kushinagar, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(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 as directed by the Court. 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.

(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. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year. Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within ten days. Order Date :- 13.12.2023 Rohit High Court of Judicature at Allahabad