Allahabad High Court
Priyanka vs State Of U.P. on 24 January, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved On:- 16.01.2023
Delivered On:- 24.01.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14032 of 2022
Applicant :- Priyanka
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Pandey,Jitendra Kumar Shishodia,Sandeep Tripathi,Vikas Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Bharti
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Shri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. There is allegation in the FIR that cousin (Priyanka) of the informant had lodged a missing report on 31.01.2022 regarding her mother, Smt. Usha Devi, from Sonipat but on 02.02.2022 a dead body has been recovered in Kairana, hence FIR was lodged against unknown accused.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the daughter of the deceased and his name was taken by co-accused, Shivam, in his confessional statement. She was arrested along with co-accused persons, Shivam, Naushad and Rajendra, and false recovery of tractor trolly was allegedly shown from all the accused persons. He has submitted that there is no direct evidence against the applicant except vague allegations of property dispute of the deceased with her mother. The allegation that the deceased had married co-accused, Shivam, which was opposed by her mother is false.
4. Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application. He has submitted that the applicant had affair with co-accused, Shivam, and they wanted to grab property of mother of applicant. The applicant has one brother, Pankaj, who was married with Reena Devi. Prior of lodging of the missing report the applicant got a will executed in her favour on 15.07.2020 from her deceased mother wherein it was stated that Pankaj along with his family is living separately and she is living with the applicant, who is her daughter, and she will get of her property after her death. He has submitted that the applicant got her mother murdered after getting the will executed. A copy of the will dated 15.07.2020 has been brought on record.
5. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that the will brought on record, the Annexure- SA-1 allegedly executed by mother of the applicant is not a registered document. In the will, the date mentioned is 15.07.2020, the date of incident alleged is 02.02.2022. Therefore, the will was executed about one and half years earlier to the date of incident. A supplementary affidavit is also on record which shows that the applicant was pregnant while in jail. The investigating officer has collected evidence that the applicant was found in the company of co-accused and they were taking the deceased lying in tractor.
6. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances and that the applicant is a woman and is in jail since 06.02.2022, she deserves to be enlarged on bail by this Court.
7. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant, Priyanka, involved in Case Crime No. 42 of 2022, under Sections- 302 and 201 IPC, Police Station- Kandhla, District- Shamli, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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.
(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 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.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 24.01.2023
Rohit
