Allahabad High Court
Yasoda vs State Of U.P. on 26 July, 2021
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- BAIL No. - 1626 of 2020
Applicant :- Yasoda
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Yadav,Bhanu Pratap Singh,Mulayam Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.
2. The applicant is an accused in Case Crime No.327 of 2019 under Section-302 of IPC, police station Masauli, District Barabanki.
3. It has been stated that the said F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of five days i.e. on 4.9.2019 with regard to the incident which had occurred on 30.8.2019 where it is stated that the mother of the complainant has been injured by the applicant by knife attack and there was bleeding from the said wound and died soon thereafter.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that on the date of occurrence i.e. 30.8.2019 the complainant had informed the police about the said incident wherein he had stated that his mother was mentally ill and the said wound has been inflicted by herself. It is further stated that entire village knows about her mental illness. It has further been stated that in the inquest report dated 30.8.2019 also cognizance has been taken with regard to the application of the complainant given to the police on 30.8.2019 where also it is stated that the deceased was mentally ill and the said wound was self inflicted.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the contents of the first information report are themselves on the face of its false and not worthy of credence and its perusal would indicate that the weapon used in the said crime as well as 'sari' was recovered on the same day while in the recovery memo which was done on 15.9.2019 i.e. after a delay of fifteen days also the weapon used in the crime is said to have been recovered. He has submitted that the recovery memo cannot be relied upon and the contents thereof are directly in conflict with the inquest report dated 30.8.2019.
6. Lastly, it has been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 5.9.2019 thereby spent nearly more than one and half years in jail. It is further submitted that benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. is also applicable in the case of the applicant, who is a lady.
7. Learned A.G.A. though has opposed the bail application but could not dispute aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.
8.Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and having perused the records, the fact of mental illness of the deceased and the applicant being a lady thus entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. and also looking to the statutory provisions, having no criminal history and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 5.9.2019 the Court finds this to be a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant Yasoda involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 with the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(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 CrPC (iv) argument / judgment.
(vi) 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.
(vii) Since the certified copy of this order, in view of the COVID-2019 pandemic, may not be easily available to the applicant, the applicant may file computer generated copy of this order from the official website of this Court and self- attested by the learned counsel for the applicant, before the concerned Magistrate/Court/Authority/Official.
(viii) The concerned Magistrate/Court/Authority/ Official, before accepting such computerized copy, filed by the applicant, as genuine, shall verify its authenticity from the official website of this Court.
(ix) Office is also directed to send a computerized copy of this order to the District Judge concerned through e-mail or the fax, as the case may be, forthwith.
10. It is provided that none of the observations made above shall be considered by the trial court and the trial shall proceed on its own merits.
Order Date :- 26.7.2021 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
