Priynka vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 525 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 72
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29669 of 2021
 
Applicant :- Priynka
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Order on Criminal Misc. (Amendment) Application No. 3 of 2022:

By this amendment application the applicant has prayed for amendment in the array of parties so as to correct the spelling of the name of the applicant as "Priyanka" in place of "Priynka".

The amendment application is allowed.

The necessary amendment be incorporated by the applicant during the course of the day.

Order on Memo of Bail Application:

Heard Shri Vishal Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Priyanka under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 357 of 2020 for offence punishable under Sections 306, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Chhibramau, District Kannauj, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Kannauj vide order dated 17.9.2020.

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 24.5.2020 has been lodged by father of the deceased against the applicant and five other family members of the applicant stating that on 21/22.5.2020 his son has committed suicide. He informed the authorities and the police got down dead body of his son from gallows. One suicide note has been recovered from the pocket of the pant of the deceased. It is further alleged that all accused persons including the applicant demanded money from his son. They also blackmailed him and abetted for committing suicide. After the incident, all the accused persons were threatening the family of the first informant with dire consequences.

After lodging of the first information inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 22.5.2020 at 11.00 a.m. Postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 22.5.2020 at 2.30 p.m. As per postmortem report, one incomplete ligature mark was present on the person of the deceased. Cause of death was asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. In the stomach 100 ml semi digested food was found. After recording the statements of the first informant and other prosecution witnesses, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and her mother Kusma Devi on 25.9.2020 and the investigation is pending against other named co-accused persons. One suicide note has been made part of investigation during the course of investigation. The applicant was arrested on 31.7.2020.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the applicant is wife of the deceased. It is further submitted that suicide note, as alleged by the prosecution, has been recovered after 24 days of the incident on 12.6.2020. It is further submitted that as per suicide note, main allegation has been attributed to co-accused Kusma Devi, who is mother-in-law of the deceased. As per suicide note, deceased had love affairs with the sister of the applicant and co-accused Kusma Devi had promised to marry the deceased with the sister of the applicant, but she did not complete her promise. During this period sister of the applicant got pregnant with the deceased. It is further submitted that co-accused Kusma Devi has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.11.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45654 of 2020.

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

(a) Applicant is wife of the deceased;

(b) Marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased about more than six years ago;

(c) Deceased has committed suicide in his house;

(d) Deceased had love affairs and physical relation with the sister of the applicant due to which sister of the applicant got pregnant;

(e) As per suicide note, co-accused Kusma Devi (mother-in-law of the deceased) had promised to marry the deceased with the younger sister of the applicant, but she did not complete her promise;

(f) Co-accused Kusma Devi has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.11.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45654 of 2020.

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

Let applicant, Priyanka be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) 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 the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel.

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

Order Date :- 6.4.2022

T. Sinha