Allahabad High Court
Aneesa (Second Bail) vs State Of U.P. on 15 May, 2015
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- BAIL No. - 3951 of 2014
Applicant :- Aneesa (Second Bail)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nirmal Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Nirmal Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. First bail application of the applicant was dismissed by Hon'ble Abdul Mateen, J. for want of prosecution vide order dated 24.11.2010.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. of the present case was lodged against the applicant, her husband and son. The applicant is the mother of deceased Km. Afsana. He submits that the daughter of applicant was having affair with deceased Irfan and when she was found in compromising position with him on account of heat of passion and sudden provocation, the husband and son of the applicant murdered the two deceased by axe. As the dead body of the two deceased were found in the house of the applicant, hence she was also implicated in the present case along with her husband and son. He submits that 18.5.2015 is the date fixed before the trial court for recording of evidence of Investigating Officer of the present case. He submits that the case of the applicant is distinguishable from other co-accused persons and being a woman she is entitled for the benefit of Section 437 Proviso-I Cr.P.C. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent. The applicant is in jail since 26.8.2009.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.
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 Aneesa involved in Case Crime No. 1628 of 2009 under Sections 342, 302/34 I.P.C., police station Pasgaon, District Lakhimpur Kheri be released on bail on her 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 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 her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her 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 her 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 six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that the order granting bail to the applicant shall not be treated as parity by other co-accused persons.
Order Date :- 15.5.2015
shiraz
