Allahabad High Court
Neetu Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 25 April, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:72875 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57551 of 2022 Applicant :- Neetu Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Onkar Singh,Sachin Malik Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghuvansh Chandra,Ram Jee Saxena Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Smt. Sujata Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.P.Singh, learned A.G.A., Sri Raghuvansh Chandra, learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
2. This bail application was filed on 25.11.2022. According to order sheet this bail application was taken up for hearing on six dates, however it was adjourned either on ground of exchange of pleadings or on the request for counsel for parties.
3, The applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.311 of 2022, under Sections 302 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Nauchandi, District-Meerut.
4. Applicant before this Court is wife of deceased. Earlier, she was married to elder brother of deceased who died allegedly in a road accident on 18.11.2016, thereafter she got married with deceased in the year 2017. Complainant, father of deceased lodged an F.I.R. that his son was murdered and the present applicant was involved. The informant has narrated few circumstances in the F.I.R in order to show that there was a motive that applicant has committed the crime. During investigation it was revealed that murder was caused by two co-accused being contract killers. One co-accused Manish Sharma was granted baiil vide order dated 12.12.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.55605 of 2022, Neutral Citation No.-2022:AHC:215599 and other co-accused Sameer Saif @ Sam has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court recently vide order dated 22.4.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13195 of 2024, Neutral Citation No.-2024:AHC:70090.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently urged that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant for alleged crime. Applicant has no advantage as she is not the beneficiary to murder her husband. There are eye witnesses account also. However, they have not recognised the alleged assailants as their faces were covered by clothes and hey have just witnessed the occurrence. The assailants were not known and remained unidentified.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant refers statement of witnesses recorded during trial that there is not a single evidence which could connect the applicant with crime. Applicant has two children who are presently staying along with their maternal Uncle and they require love and affection of their mother especially when their father is no more.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 15.9.2022 i.e. about one year and six months and there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, she will never misuse her liberty and will co-operate in the trial.
8. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for informant have vehemently opposed the bail application and submit that reasons assigned in the aforesaid bail orders granting bail to co-accused are not in terms of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Khokar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr (2022) 3 SCC 501.They also referred postmortem report, wherein it was opined that immediate cause of death was shock and Haemorrhage as a result of fire arm injury. There are three fire arm entry wounds. He refers statement on record that contract killers were arranged for a payment of Rs.1.5 lakhs and some amount was paid in advance. Applicant is the main beneficiary of the crime. They also referred part of Case Diary wherein observation of call details was mentioned that contract killer/co-accused Manish Sharma was in touch with Deepanshu, brother of the present applicant at the relevant time.
9. I have considered the above mentioned rival submissions in referred factual and legal background and in view of established principle of jurisprudence of bail i.e 'bail is rule and jail is exception' as well as relevant factors for consideration of a bail application such as (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; (viii) danger of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail etc. and that an order to grant or not to grant bail must assigned reasons (see Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (2022) 8 SCC 559, Manoj Kumar Khokar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr (2022) 3 SCC 501, The State of Jharkhand Vs. Dhananjay Gupta @ Dhananjay Prasad Gupta: Order dated 7.11.2023 in SLP (Crl) No.10810/2023 and Shiv Kumar Vs The State of U.P. and Ors: Order dated 12.9.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.2782 of 2023), therefore, I am of considered opinion that present is a fit case to grant bail to applicant mainly on following reasons:-
(i) Applicant is a woman and is in jail since 15.9.2022 i.e. about one year and six months and considering order sheet, trial is proceeding at a snail's speed.
(ii) Court takes note of alleged offence as well as submission of counsel for applicant that there are very weak evidence against the applicant to corroborate it.
(iii) Applicant has two children and they require love and affection of their mother.
(iv) As referred above, alleged contract killers Manish Sharma and Sameer Saif @ Sam have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
(v) Court takes note that reasons therein while granting bail to co-accused may not be in terms of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Khokar (supra), still it cannot be denied that said two co-accused in present case have been granted bail.
(vi) Court takes note that applicant is a woman and there are allegations that applicant is the main beneficiary of the occurrence however, considering the nature of evidence in this regard, I find merit in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant denying being main beneficiary.
(vii) Court also takes note of submission in regard to weak nature of evidence collected during investigation.
10. Let the applicant-Neetu Sharma, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that 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.
(iii) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., 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 her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(iv) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months after release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.
(v) Applicant has to appear on each and every date before learned Trial Court and any application for exemption of her appearance on vague ground could be a ground for cancellation of bail by learned Trial Court without even issuing notice.
11. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
12. The bail application is allowed.
13. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.
Order Date :- 25.4.2024 SB