High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13059 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13632 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Meena Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Tripathi,Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi,Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur,Pramod Kumar Singh,Shri Ram Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Singh,Tripathi B.G. Bhai Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Sri Pramod Kumar Singh and Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsels for the first informant are not present even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list. 4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Meena Chauhan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in Case Crime No.91 of 20230, under Sections 302/34, 201 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Lavedi, District Etawah. 5. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for non prosecution by this Court vide order dated 16.02.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8560 of 2021. 6. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 15.10.2020 by Sunil Kumar against the applicant and Mandakini alleging therein that his brother Yogesh Kumar Chauhan was posted at Police Station Ram Janm Bhumi, District Ayodhya. On 07.10.2020, he informed him that he is going on leave for seven days to his house but he did not reach the house after which, a search was launched by him. Rajesh Jurail of the same police station informed him that he had talked to Yogesh Kumar Chauhan on 07.10.2020 at about 07:30 PM and he informed him that he has reached Lucknow. On the same day, a lady constable Mandakini, who is a resident of District Etawah also had taken leave and had gone out. Both the said persons were having a love affair and continuously talked to each other. A missing report was got lodged by him at Police Station Ramjanm Bhumi on 09.10.2020. On 10.10.2020 in the afternoon, he received an information that the dead body of an unknown person is lying in the mortuary at Etawah, which was of his brother, which has been cremated. He has a suspicion that on refusal by his brother to marry the lady constable Mandakini, she took him into confidence and called him to her house and along with her sister Meena Chauhan (present applicant) and her associates in a planned manner administered some poisonous substance to him and then pushed him, due to which he received injury and died. A report be lodged and action be taken. The post- mortem examination of the said body was conducted, which was found to have received one contusion, one multiple contusion and three multiple abrasions and cause of death was opined as coma due to head injury, however, the viscera was preserved. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident. It is further submitted that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no credible evidence against the applicant. It is further submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded and a charge sheet dated 30.10.2020 has been submitted against Mandakini, the present applicant, Vinod Kumar Sharma, Mahesh and Mamta under Sections 302, 34, 201 IPC but the same is without any credible evidence. It is further submitted that although the police has shown the recovery of certain articles of the deceased from the bushes lying near his dead body but the same are on the joint pointing out of all the five accused persons. The copy of the recovery memo has been placed before the Court, which is annexed as annexure-8 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that the applicant is lady and is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in paragraph no.22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 19.10.2020. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the sister of co-accused Mandakini, who was having love affair with the deceased and in a planned manner, the applicant, her sister and other co-accused persons have committed murder, in which the charge sheet has been submitted against them. 9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that this is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for non prosecution. The applicant is a lady. The present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. The investigation in the matter has concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and four other co-accused persons. There is no eye witness to the said incident. 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 11. Let the applicant- Meena Chauhan, 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 will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) 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. (iv) 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. (v) 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 her in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. 12. 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. 13. The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Sanjeet (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad