HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 25523 of 2019
Applicant :- Smt. Ganeshiya
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Prasad Mishra,Manish Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Mishra
Hon’ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Learned counsel for the complainant is not present in the revise list even he was not present in the first round.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 46 of 2019, under Sections 498A, Section304B I.P.C. and section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S. Adampur, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order.
The contention as raised at the bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; applicant happens to be the mother-in-law; cause of death of daughter-in-law is hanging; it is a case of separate living, as husband and wife (daughter-in-law) were living separately; husband is already in jail; reliance has been placed upon the statements of the witnesses, copy of which are annexed at page no. 48 onwards of the affidavit; the accused applicant is in jail since 20.2.2019 and in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.
The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned A. G. A.
Keeping in view the reasons as stated above, the facts and circumstances of the case as have been discussed at the Bar of this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Smt. Ganeshiya involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SectionVinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 2.12.2019