Sonu Sharma @ Sheetal Sharma vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 4187 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 44
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10667 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Sonu Sharma @ Sheetal Sharma
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

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

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Sonu Sharma @ Sheetal Sharma under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 1281 of 2021 for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahar during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar vide order dated 7.1.2022.

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 26.11.2021 has been lodged by the father of the deceased against the applicant and two named accused persons stating that the deceased was residing in the house of the applicant as on rent prior to one year to the incident and the deceased was home guard and doing his duty in Police Station Khurja Nagar (same Police Station of the incident). The applicant and other co-accused persons took Rs. 10 lacs for providing one plot and service to younger son of the first informant but after that they did not give any plot or provide to service. The deceased was demanding his money of Rs. 10 lacs. On 20.11.2021 at about 8:25 AM, the co-accused Krishna Kumar Sharma informed the younger son of the first informant that Surendra was not well. They reached the spot. The dead body of the Surendra was lying in hanging position through a ventilation. The applicant and other co-accused persons committed murder of his son and after committing murder they hanged the dead body of his son.

Before lodging of the first information report, the inquest of the body of the deceased has been conducted on 25.11.2021 at 13:30 hours on the written information of the co-accused Krishna Kumar Sharma, which has been enclosed as G.D. report No.23 time 13:30 hours dated 25.11.2021 and the dead body of the deceased was found in hanging position.

The postmortem report of the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 25.11.2021 at about 3:40 PM. As per postmortem report, except ligature mark no other external injury has been found on the person of the deceased. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other two accused persons on 24.1.2022 under Section 306 IPC. The applicant was arrested on 28.11.2021.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged under Sections 302, 420 IPC but the charge sheet has been submitted under Section 306 IPC. It is further submitted that the co-accused Krishna Kumar Sharma has informed the police in writing on 25.11.2021 at 13:30 hours in presence of police dead body was lying in a hanging position. It is further submitted that except ligature mark no other external injury was found on the person of the deceased. It is further submitted that no evidence has been collected with regard to the abatement of committing suicide by the deceased during investigation. It is further submitted that the deceased was working as a home guard in the same police station but the first information report has been lodged after two days of the incident. It is further submitted that the husband of applicant has paid Rs. 2,30,000/- to the wife of the deceased on 11.10.2021 by R.T.G.S. due to economic help of the deceased. The applicant has no criminal history. Parity is sought in the matter of grant of bail with co-accused Krishna Kumar Sharma, who has been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8224 of 2022. Submission is that case of the applicant is identical and he is entitled to parity in the matter of grant of bail.

Per contra, learned AGA 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 anything material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he 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) FIR has been lodged under Sections 302, 420 of IPC but the charge sheet has been submitted under Section 306 IPC;

(b) The deceased was tenant in the house of the applicant prior to one year from the incident;

(c) The claim for bail is pressed on the ground of parity with the aforesaid co-accused;

(d) Police found the deceased in hanging position;

(e) Except ligature mark, no other external injuries found on the person of the deceased;

(f) There is no evidence is collected during the investigation with regard to the abatement of suicide.

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, her role and involvement in the offence, her 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- Sonu Sharma @ Sheetal Sharma 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 his 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 case, 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 of law after the release of the applicant, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 2018 SC 2440, 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 :- 26.5.2022

Anil