HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 17 Case :- IIIrd BAIL No. - 8066 of 2014 Applicant :- Smt.Rashida (Third Bail) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Riyz Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by Hon'ble Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J. vide order dated 24.7.2013 and second bail application was rejected by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. vide order dated 12.3.2014, hence this third bail application on behalf of the applicant.
Heard Sri Mohammad Riyz, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohammad Islam Khan, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. There are two dying declaration of the deceased. In the first dying declaration which was recorded on 1.4.2013, the deceased did not name any persons and has stated that he received burn injuries on account of accidental fire broke out while cooking food in the house but subsequently in her dying declaration, she has roped all family members of the applicant excluding her husband, who was not present at the house at the time of incident. He submits that the applicant is aged about 80 years, the said fact has been mentioned in para-5 of the accompanying affidavit and she lives separately from the deceased. He submits that co-accused Chand Babu @ Chand Ali has already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.1.2014 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 6753 of 2013 copy of which has been annexed at page-30 of the accompanying affidavit. He submits that till date charges have not been framed against the applicant. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent. The applicant is in jail since 3.6.2013.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant Smt. Rashida involved in Case Crime No. C670 of 2011 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Kudwar, District Sultanpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 his 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 his 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.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of eight months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in view of the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C., if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 30.4.2015 shiraz