Allahabad High Court
Smt Amrita Chandel @ Gudia vs State Of U.P. on 4 January, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54886 of 2019
Applicant :- Smt Amrita Chandel @ Gudia
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pandey Balkrishna,Manish Kumar,Manoj Kumar,Prashant Vyas
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prem Shankar
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Prashant Vyas and Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Prem Shankar, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 418 of 2019, under Sections 302/34, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Omveer has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 20.1.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48242 of 2019. The applicant is languishing in jail since 3.5.2019, having no criminal history. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is at a better footing to that of co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, she is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
Learned Senior Counsel has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further stated that only other evidence available is of animosity with the deceased person of the applicant as she is stated to be of a promiscuous character having relations with her brother-in-law Omveer. The applicant is entitled for bail on this ground only. There is no other evidence except confessional statement of the co-accused persons which is not admissible under the Evidence Act.
Per contra, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail application and disputed the said submissions stated by the learned Senior Counsel on the ground that the applicant, who happens to be the wife of the deceased person, had not informed about the missing of her husband for one day. He further stated that the co-accused Omveer has categorically stated that he had taken away some ornaments from the applicant and had sold them for paying ransom to the shooters/perpetrators for commission of murder of the deceased person. However, the aforesaid factual aspects of parity to the co-accused and of no criminal history of the applicant, have not been disputed by him.
Learned Senior Counsel has disputed the said argument on the ground that the said statement averred by learned counsel for the informant is not admissible at all and even the statement of the son of the applicant is vague as the relation of the applicant and the co-accused Omveer has been wrongly mentioned in the said statement. It has been stated therein that Omveer is his Fufa instead of Mausa although in English both are referred as brother-in-law.
Learned Senior counsel has placed much reliance of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119 wherein it has been opined that Section 25 of the Evidence Act is imperative and a confession made to a Police Officer under no circumstances is admissible in evidence against the accused.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and the case law adduced, 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.
Let the applicant- Smt Amrita Chandel @ Gudia involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
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.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 4.1.2023
Vandana
