Allahabad High Court
Sapna Saroj vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secry Home Up on 14 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 133 of 2022 Applicant :- Sapna Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secry Home Up Counsel for Applicant :- Sarjoo Ram,Gayatri Abhyasi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Shri Sarjoo Ram, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Sapna Saroj for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.185 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Hathigawan, District Pratapgrah, during trial.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and she has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.
It is further submitted that the applicant was herself the informant of the instant case as she had lodged F.I.R. on 19.09.2021 at Police Station Hathigawan, District Pratapgrah against unknown persons alleging therein that on 15.09.2021 at about 08:00 when her husband (deceased) was taking dinner, a phone call was received on his mobile phone and he without taking his dinner had left the house and thereafter a person in the name of Arjun Pal of the village informed her that one Bolero vehicle had come from the side of Village Bhitara and deceased had boarded that vehicle and thereafter he did not return. It is also submitted that in the F.I.R. that on 18.09.2021, photographs of a dead body was being circulated on the Whatsapp groups and she had gone to the scene and identified her husband in the mortuary. During the course of investigation, complicity of the applicant as well as other co-accused persons had surfaced for hatching a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased and the conspiracy is shown to be overheard by a witness namely Lallu Yadav and thereafter the applicant and other co-accused persons were shown to have been arrested and confessed their guilt while they were in the custody of the police to the tune that the applicant in order to eliminate the deceased had hatched conspiracy with other co-accused persons and as also the applicant's earrings (Jhumka) was also recovered from the possession of the co-accused Dablu.
Highlighting the above factual matrix, it is vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence as nobody has seen the applicant or any other person committing the offence and the circumstances, which are being alleged against the applicant, are so weak that the prosecution would not be able to secure conviction of the applicant in the court of law. It is also submitted that there was no occasion for the applicant to have hatched any conspiracy to murder her own husband in presence of four children and the story, which has been cooked up by the prosecution with the aid of the persons, who are inimical towards the applicant, is highly improbable and self contradictory as one independent witness in the name of Arjun Pal is stated to have seen the deceased leaving village in Bolero vehicle, therefore, the prosecution is taking contradictory stand.
It is next submitted that applicant is in jail in this case since 24.09.2021 and she is not having any criminal history. There is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that there are strong circumstances against the applicant and the cumulative result of the same is that it is only and only the applicant, who has committed the offence with the aid of other co-accused persons and having regard to the manner in which the crime has been committed, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances, which have been alleged against the applicant, are to the tune that though the applicant had last talked with the deceased till the night of 15.09.2021, she did not make any complaint or F.I.R. in the police station. The second circumstance, which has been alleged against the applicant is that the conspiracy to murder the deceased was overheard by one witness in the name of Lallu Yadav and thereafter the prosecution is relying on the confessional statement of the applicant and other co-accused persons. The law with regard to the appreciation of evidence pertaining to the cases based on circumstantial evidence is no more res integra and the same has been settled by catena of decisions propounded by the Supreme Court and the crux of these decisions is that the prosecution must prove all the circumstances independently, which are being placed against accused person independently and the proved circumstances must form a chain not leaving any missing link and the cumulative effect of the proved circumstances must be that it is only and only the accused person, who has committed the offence not leaving any room for any another person to enter into and commit the offence.
Coming to the facts of the instant case, the only circumstance/evidence available against the applicant is of overhearing conspiracy by a witness Lallu Yadav, which according to learned counsel for the applicant could not be believed as nobody would hatched a conspiracy publicly. Secondly it is vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that the earrings (Jhumka), which is shown to be of the applicant, had not been got identified by any witness while the applicant and the deceased were having four children, two of them of the age of understanding. Applicant is in jail in this case since 24.09.2021 without any previous criminal history. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.
Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and 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 the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed.
Let the accused/applicant- Sapna Saroj involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
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.
Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 14.7.2022 Anupam S/-