Raj Kumari vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 14322 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34460 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Raj Kumari
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vishesh Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shri Prakash Dwivedi
 

 
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.63 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201,120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Lalganj, District Mirzapur.

3. The applicant herself is the first informant in the FIR and as alleged that certain unknown persons took away her husband on 21.02.2022 whereafter his dead body was found on the next day. Applicant has been taken into custody on the basis of statement of her mother-in-law that she heard the applicant in conversion with one Sunil Singh on the night of disappearance of her husband and hatching conspiracy to kill him in order to marry the said Sunil Singh with whom allegedly she was having any extra marital affair.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her only because she is on inimical terms with her mother-in-law. It is submitted the applicant was taken into custody on 24.02.2022 and the arrest memo indicates a multi media mobile having been seized with her. It is further submitted that despite the said fact, the CDR dated 23.02.2022 as indicated in the case diary is showing the corroboration of applicant having a prolonged conversation with the said Sunil Singh. Learned counsel as such submits that such a report in the case diary appears to be doubtful when the mobile phone of the applicant itself was seized subsequently. Attention has also been drawn to the bail rejection order of court below in which it has been indicated that the mobile phone being used by co-accused Sunil Singh was registered in the name of one Atul Kumar Singh. It is submitted that the said fact is not disputed and also creates a doubt with regard to the CDR. As such, it is submitted that there is only circumstantial evidence available against the applicant with key ingredients and link being missing. Further more, it has been submitted that at the worst, a case only under Section 120-B IPC is made out.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with the submission that the statement of mother-in-law was recorded on the day of lodging of the FIR which clearly indicates that there was no deliberation with regard to same. It is submitted that the CDR also clearly corroborates the statement of mother-in-law that the applicant was having a prolonged conversation with the said Sunil Singh and to of them hatched the conspiracy to kill the deceased.

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 submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that although the applicant herself is the first informant but has been taken into custody on account of statement of mother-in-law recorded on the date of lodging the FIR indicating prolong conversation between the applicant and co-accused Sunil Singh. A perusal of material available on record indicates that the arrest memo is dated 24.02.2022 in which a multi media mobile belonging to the applicant was seized. The CDR however dated 23.02.2022 allegedly corroborates the prolonged conversation between the applicant and co-accused Sunil Singh. In the bail rejection order of court below, it has been stated that the mobile used by co-accused Sunil Singh actually belongs to one Atul Kumar Singh. At this stage, there appears to be material contradiction in the prosecution version which however is subject to evidence in trial. At this stage, there does not appear to be any credible direct evidence linking the applicant with the crime of which she is accused. The accused-applicant is in jail since 24.02.2022 and as yet it is stated that only charges have been framed. Upon consideration it also appears that the case of applicant is clearly distinguishable from that of co-accused Sunil Singh.

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,Raj Kumari, 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 :- 19.10.2022

Subodh/-