Allahabad High Court
Khushboo Sharma vs The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home on 1 May, 2024
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:33960
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4728 of 2024
Applicant :- Khushboo Sharma
Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhup Chandra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Bhup Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.D. Bhatt, learned AGA for the State.
2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 19.07.2022 in S.T. No.1430 of 2022, Case Crime No.0251 of 2022, under Section 304 IPC, Police Station ? Chanda, District ? Sultanpur.
3. This is the third bail application. First and second bail applications bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.13471 of 2022 & 7471 of 2023 have been rejected by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. vide orders dated 21.11.2022 & 14.07.2023 respectively.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he shall not address those points, which have already been addressed at the time of rejection of first and second bail applications and he shall address the Court only on the point which may be considered as new grounds to consider the third bail application.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as she has not committed any offence as alleged. The allegation against the present applicant has been levelled that she murdered her own son aged about 13 months by throttling for the reason that her husband had not taken her to Mumbai where he had been serving in a private job. While rejecting the second bail application on 14.07.2023 (supra), this Court directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after service of the aforesaid order upon the court concerned, the learned trial court has, however, tried to expedite the trial but till date, out of eight prosecution witnesses, the statements of five prosecution witnesses have been record. Mainly all fact witnesses have been examined and only formal prosecution witnesses are to be examined. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history. Further, the applicant undertakes that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, if granted by this Court. Further, the applicant being lady may be given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. In the given circumstances, there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded shortly, therefore, considering the period of incarceration of the applicant i.e. about two years, she may be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in re;Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3610 of 2020), wherein the Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial period then the period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground. Besides, he has referred the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505, wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, the bail application of the accused may be considered.
7. Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.
8. As per learned counsel for the applicant, out of eight prosecution witnesses, the statements of five prosecution witnesses have been record. Mainly all fact witnesses have been examined and only formal prosecution witnesses are to be examined. After examination of all prosecution witnesses, the trial would be listed for mandatory requirement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the defence witnesses would be required to be examined. After that, the case would be listed for final hearing. In completing the aforesaid exercise, substantial time may take place.
9. Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that the present applicant is lady, who is in jail for about two years, precisely, the period of two years would be completed on 19.07.2024; the fact that all fact/ material witnesses have been examined; the present applicant is having no prior criminal history; considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra), Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) and Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra) and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded shortly, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail giving her benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C.
10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
11. Let applicant- Khushboo Sharma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-
(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.
(v)The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 1.5.2024 /RBS/-
