Allahabad High Court
Smt. Kamini vs State Of U.P. on 1 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44215 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Kamini
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.232 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, registered at Police Station Bindki, District Fatehpur.
3. As per contents of FIR lodged by police, the applicant alognwith co-accused was instrumental in causing the death of her mother-in-law by strangulation since she was in illicit relation-ship with her brother-in-law which was objected to by the deceased. FIR has been lodged as per information received from police informer.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her and has also indicated the fact that FIR has been lodged after two days of the incident by the police only on the information derived from a police informer. It is submitted that there is no eye witness account and even the statement of her husband Rajendra Singh only indicates hearsay with regard to alleged illicit relationship. It is thus submitted that there is no direct or even circumstantial evidence against the applicant who is in jail since 05.06.2022 with only charge-sheet having been filed.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that the applicant's husband Rajendra Singh in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. has clearly supported the allegations levelled against applicant.
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
7. Considering the submission advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that FIR has been lodged on the basis of information derived by the police informer. There does not appears to be any eye witness account and even the applicant's husband Rajendra Singh in his statement indicates information regarding alleged illicit relation-ship being derived from other villagers. At this stage, there does not appear to be any direct or event circumstantial evidence against the applicant who is in jail since 05.06.2022 with only charge-sheet having been filed.
8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant, Smt. Kamini, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(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 her, 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.
Order Date :- 1.12.2022
Subodh/-
