HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 2
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 6911 of 2020
Applicant :- Raisha
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Kuamr Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Apul Misra
Hon’ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Counter affidavit filed today, is taken on record. Sri Farid Ahmad Qureshi, learned counsel has filed parcha on behalf of the applicant, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.
This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant involved in Case Crime No. 11 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 326B, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Noorpur, District Bijnor.
As per prosecution case, three nominated persons including applicant caused burn injury and injury by sharp weapon; they have been assigned role of assault by lathi and danda; in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim has assigned the role of causing burn injury by sprinkling toxic liquid to the applicant.
It is urged that applicant is mother-in-law; there is contradiction in the versions of F.I.R. and statement; F.IR. has been lodged after four days of the incident; injured victim was residing at her maternal home which is 40 Km. from matrimonial home; applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case; applicant is languishing in jail since 15.1.2020, having no criminal antecedent and in case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant-Raisha, be released on bail in the above case on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to following additional 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.
However, it is made clear that in case the applicant indulges in intimidating or threatening any witness, the State or Prosecutor would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 27.2.2020
Mukesh Kr.
