Allahabad High Court
Smt. Neeta @ Geeta vs State Of U.P. on 3 December, 2018
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37797 of 2018
Applicant :- Smt. Neeta @ Geeta
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Krishna Chaurasia,Brijesh Sahai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Prakash Kushwaha,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for complainant and learned A.G.A.
Perused the record.
Submission of counsel for applicant is that this is a case in which the record indicates a perpetual attempt resorted to on behalf of prosecuting agencies to drastically shift the versions and also to add, embellish and implicate as many persons as possible as accused. The F.I.R. itself nominated two persons as accused and in fact the applicant and her husband were equally implicated at the initial stage. Subsequently, it transpires that, a dying declaration was also got recorded in which no role was assigned to the husband of the applicant and the allegation was confined to the applicant alone. Later on yet another dying declaration seem to have been recorded, which finds its place at page-25 of the bail application and which shows that all sort of allegations regarding demand of dowry were made against the husband of the deceased, her mother-in-law, her father-in-law, her Jeth and her Jethani (applicant) and they were all implicated in that statement. In fact according to this subsequent dying declaration the husband of the deceased, her mother-in-law, her father-in-law, her jeth and her jethani (applicant) all of them are said to have poured kerosene oil on the deceased who then are said to have set her ablaze. It was also said that the deceased was brought to the hospital by neighbouring people and when the information reached her parents, they came and managed her treatment. According to subsequent dying declaration all the aforesaid persons have jointly set her ablaze. Contention is that with this nature of shifting stands of the prosecution it might be very dicey, very hazardous, to act upon any of the versions and it would be very difficult to separate grain from the chaff which seem to have been mixed inextricably in the present case. Further submission is that the ultimate truth may be thrashed out during the course of trial only but at least in the wake of diagonally contradictory versions on record it shall be highly unsafe to place reliance upon any of them and therefore at least a prima facie case of bail is made out. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that she is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make herself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon her. It has also been submitted that the applicant is in jail since 10.4.2018 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for complainant have opposed the prayer for bail.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant-Smt. Neeta @ Geeta, involved in Case Crime No.25 of 2017, u/s 302 I.P.C., P.S.-Kotwali Nagar, District-Banda be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-
(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and her personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 3.12.2018
M. Kumar
