Allahabad High Court
Smt. Hirawati Devi vs State Of U.P. on 17 March, 2021
Author: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32784 of 2020 Applicant :- Smt. Hirawati Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajeev Upadhyay Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Two rejoinder affidavits have been filed by learned counsel for the applicant today, which are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Smt. Hirawati Devi with a prayer to enlarge her on bail in Case Crime No. 39 of 2020, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Mehnagar, District Azamgarh.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a woman who has been falsely implicated in the present case. Submission is that according to the first information report upon some quarrel, the accused persons have caused injury by use of sickle to the deceased, who sustained injury and died. It has been submitted that according to the first information report the injuries has been caused by use of sharp weapon but the postmortem report reveals that no injuries have been found on the dead body which should have been caused by the sharp weapon. According to the postmortem report two antimortem injuries have been found on the dead body; the first one is lacerated wound above the left eyebrow and the second one is contusion on the fore head, therefore, it has been submitted that the injuries does not correspond the weapon used in the commission of the offence, hence, the version of the first information report is highly suspicious. The accused-applicant is prepared to furnish the surety and bond and is giving undertaking that she will cooperate in trial. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant has been in jail since 19.03.2020, hence, she is entitled to bail.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. They further submitted that after investigation, the police has already filed charge sheet in the matter. It has been submitted that the alleged injuries may be caused by the use of sickle in different way.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the justification that if sickle is used in different way such injuries may be caused, cannot be looked into at this stage as that shall be established during trial. There is inconsistencies and contradictions between the alleged story and the postmortem report. The accused-applicant is a woman, hence, benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. may be given to her. Without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that applicant is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
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.
Order Date :- 17.3.2021 sailesh