Allahabad High Court
Aneeta Singh vs State Of U.P. on 28 February, 2023
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7075 of 2023 Applicant :- Aneeta Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Nath Tripathi,Preet Pal Singh Rathore Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Narendra Nath Tripathi, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
This is the 3rd bail application filed by applicant-Aneeta Singh seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 182 of 2020 under Section 306 IPC, Police Station- Kubersthan, District-Kushinagar during the pendency of Sessions Trial No. 617 of 2020 (State Vs. Anil Singh) under Section 306 IPC, Police Station-Kubersthan, District-Kushinagar now pending in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna.
Record shows that the 1st bail application of applicant was rejected by His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Chandra vide order dated 22.01.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48499 pf 2020 (Anil Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, same is reproduced hereinunder:-
"Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of applicant and the same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for applicant(s), learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant(s), Anil Singh and Aneeta Singh, who are involved in Case Crime No. 182 of 2020, under Sections 306 I.P.C. P.S.- Kuberasthan, District- Kushinagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that initially the F.I.R was lodged under Section 302 I.P.C and during investigation same was converted into Section 306 I.P.C. There is no evidence of abetment to commit suicide by the deceased. There is no external injury on any part of the body of deceased except a ligature mark. Deceased was the real daughter of applicant no. 1 and step daughter of applicant-2. She was a regular student and was getting education. While she was going to attend the coaching and was talking with her friend on mobile, the mobile was snatched away by other persons of the family. Moreover, the informant has filed the F.I.R against applicant no. 1 and his family which was registered as case crime no. 243 of 2004 under Section 498A,323 I.P.C, P.S Kuberasthan, District Kushinagar, in that case crime a compromise took place between the parties on 15.04.2000. The compromise was filed in the court concerned and the same was verified by the court concerned, compromise was Annexure-6 to the affidavit. On the basis of compromise in that case applicant and other accused were acquitted. .
Learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and contended that in the postmortem report the hyodbone was fractured. The offence of Section 302 I.P.C was converted into Section 306 I.P.C without any contrary evidence collected by the Investigating Officer.
Admittedly, the death of deceased took place in the house of applicant and in the postmortem report hyodbone was shown fractured. Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Admittedly, deceased was residing at the house of informant and was studying there just one day before the occurrence she had reached to the house of her father. Contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant that in case under Section 498A,323 I.P.C under a compromise certain amount was deposited in the account of Priyanka keeping in view the future of Priyanka but no cogent explanation on behalf of applicant in regard to unnatural death of deceased in his house just on the very next day when she reached from her grandmaternal's house.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and going through the record, it is not a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 22.1.2021"
Subsequent to above, applicant file 2nd Bail Application No. 24486 of 2021 (Aneeta Singh Vs. State of U.P.), which came to be rejected vide order dated 31.01.2022, the same is reads as under:-
"Heard Mr. Shishir Tandon, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State, who are connected virtually.
This is second bail application filed by applicant Aneeta Singh, seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 182 of 2020, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station- Kubersthan, District Kushinagar during pendency of Sessions Trial No. 617 of 2020 (State Vs. Anil Singh) under Sections 306 IPC, Police Station- Kubersthan, District Kushinagar now pending in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna.
Record shows that first bail application of application was rejected vide order dated 22.1.2021, passed by his Lordship Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J. For ready reference, same is reproduced herein under:
"Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of applicant and the same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for applicant(s), learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant(s), Anil Singh and Aneeta Singh, who are involved in Case Crime No. 182 of 2020, under Sections 306 I.P.C. P.S.- Kuberasthan, District- Kushinagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that initially the F.I.R was lodged under Section 302 I.P.C and during investigation same was converted into Section 306 I.P.C. There is no evidence of abetment to commit suicide by the deceased. There is no external injury on any part of the body of deceased except a ligature mark. Deceased was the real daughter of applicant no. 1 and step daughter of applicant-2. She was a regular student and was getting education. While she was going to attend the coaching and was talking with her friend on mobile, the mobile was snatched away by other persons of the family. Moreover, the informant has filed the F.I.R against applicant no. 1 and his family which was registered as case crime no. 243 of 2004 under Section 498A,323 I.P.C, P.S Kuberasthan, District Kushinagar, in that case crime a compromise took place between the parties on 15.04.2000. The compromise was filed in the court concerned and the same was verified by the court concerned, compromise was Annexure-6 to the affidavit. On the basis of compromise in that case applicant and other accused were acquitted. .
Learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and contended that in the postmortem report the hyodbone was fractured. The offence of Section 302 I.P.C was converted into Section 306 I.P.C without any contrary evidence collected by the Investigating Officer.
Admittedly, the death of deceased took place in the house of applicant and in the postmortem report hyodbone was shown fractured. Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Admittedly, deceased was residing at the house of informant and was studying there just one day before the occurrence she had reached to the house of her father. Contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant that in case under Section 498A,323 I.P.C under a compromise certain amount was deposited in the account of Priyanka keeping in view the future of Priyanka but no cogent explanation on behalf of applicant in regard to unnatural death of deceased in his house just on the very next day when she reached from her grandmaternal's house.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and going through the record, it is not a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, bail application is rejected. "
Just after the expiry of period of two months and few days, this second bail application has been filed.
At the very outset, learned A.G.A has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that from the perusal of affidavit filed in support of present application for bail, it is clear that no pleading has been raised with regard to the new ground which has emerged subsequent to order dated 22.1.2021 on the basis of which, applicant is seeking her enlargement on bail. As such, present application for bail is liable to be rejected.
When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
In view of above, judgements relied upon by learned counsel for applicant in support of his submission that no offence under section 306 is made out against applicant is wholly misconceived.
The application fails and is liable to be rejected.
It is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 31.1.2022"
Subsequent to above order one of the co-accused namely Anil Singh (husband of applicant) has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21596 of 2022 (Anil Singh Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is extracted hereinunder:-
"List revised.
Heard Shri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Narendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by coordinate bench of this Court by the order dated 22.01.2021.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Anil Singh, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 182 of 2020, under Section- 306 IPC, Police Station- Kubersthan, District- Kushinagar, during pendency of trial.
There is allegation against the applicant of abetment of suicide of his own daughter.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that after the rejection of first bail application, the trial has not proceeded much and only two prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. One statement of P.W. 1 has been brought on record. The counsel has submitted that keeping in mind the incarceration of the applicant in jail since 13.10.2020 and allegation of abetment of suicide, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage. He has no criminal history to his credit. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him 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 him 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.
The Court below is directed to conclude the trial against 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 :- 12.1.2023"
On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of co-accused Anil Singh. There is no distinguishing feature on the basis of which the case of present applicant could be distinguished from aforementioned co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail. He, therefore, submits that for the facts and reasons recorded in the order dated 12.01.2023, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. However, he could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant at this stage.
Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, complicity acquisitions coupled with the fact that co-accused, Anil Singh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2023 and there being not distinguishing feature so as to distinguished the case of present applicant from the aforementioned co-accused to deny him bail, the bail application is liable to be allowed.
It is accordingly allowed.
Let the applicant-Aneeta Singh, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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 HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
10. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 28.2.2023 Vinay