Allahabad High Court
Jagdish And Another vs State Of U.P. on 27 October, 2017
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 37
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2191 of 2015
Appellant :- Jagdish And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Chandel
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
In Ref: Second Bail Application No. 49555 of 2017.
Heard Sri S.D. Singh Jadaun learned counsel for the applicants.
This is a Second Bail Application which has been filed on behalf of Jagdish and Smt. Soniya wife of Jagdish. At the very outset, Sri Jadaun submits that the application for the applicant no. 1 Jagdish be not pressed. Accordingly, this bail application is being considered only for the second applicant Smt. Soniya wife of Jagdish.
We have heard learned A.G.A. for the State Sri Narendra Kumar Singh Yadav.
Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that so far as the applicant no. 2 is concerned she being a female and already having undergone about more than 4-1/2 years of incarceration was implicated and according to the learned counsel for the applicant the evidence against the said applicant would not be sufficient to finally sustain her conviction that too even with the punishment of the life imprisonment. It is also submitted that she is aged about 57 years at present and in paragraph no. 16 of the affidavit of the application it has been stated that there is no one to look after her children. Learned counsel also submits that there are no criminal antecedents of the applicant and otherwise also there is no likelihood of the applicant misusing her bail in the event she is set at liberty at this stage. Learned counsel has attempted to distinguish the status of involvement of the applicant as from her husband on such grounds.
Learned A.G.A. has urged that no sympathy deserves to be shown, keeping in view the nature of the crime arising out of a family dispute over the possession of a lavatory. In such circumstances, the applicant even if, she is a lady does not deserve to be granted bail, at this stage.
Having considered the submissions raised and in view of the fact that the applicant is a lady and has undergone incarceration for the period aforesaid and is aged about 57 years and there is no one to look after her children, we find it fit to grant her bail as at this stage, there is no fact to indicate that there is likelihood of the bail being misused by her.
Let the appellant-applicant no. 2 Smt. Soniya wife of Jagdish convicted and sentenced in S.T. No. 10 of 2013 (State Vs. Jagdish and another), Case Crime No. 244 of 2012, under Sections 307/34, 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Karwi, District Chitrakoot 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.
On acceptance of bail bond and personal bond, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.
This order shall however be not treated as an order on merits for parity for the other co-accused. The bail application of the applicant no.1 Jagdish stands dismissed as not pressed.
Order Date :- 27.10.2017
Ishan
