High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:135026 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21382 of 2023 Applicant :- Smt. Geeta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Goswami Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Chandra Pandey Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Rajeev Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned brief holder for the State- respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 1169 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, Police Station- Highway, District- Mathura, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and six others and according to the FIR, applicant and other accused persons intercepted the deceased while he was moving on the highway and on the exhortation of the applicant and other accused persons, co-accused Vishnu caused fire-arm injury to him and due to which he sustained serious injury. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under sections 147, 148, 149, 34 and 307 IPC but after the death of the deceased, case was converted under Section 302 IPC. He further submitted that admittedly role of causing fire-arm injury to the deceased has been assigned to co- accused Vishnu and in the FIR, only role of exhortation has been assigned to the applicant. 5. He further submitted that in the present matter during investigation, statement of the injured since deceased was also recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before his death and he also stated that co-accused Vishnu caused fire-arm injury to him and he further stated that applicant and other accused persons caught hold him and applicant also caught hold his neck and co-accused Vishnu caused fire-arm injury to him in his abdomen. 6. He further submitted that the statement of the victim since deceased was recorded by the Investigating Officer appears to be quite improbable as in case of fire-arm, it is hard to believe that applicant and other accused persons would catch hold the deceased and thereafter co-accused Vishnu caused fire-arm injury to him and this fact clearly shows that entire family of the applicant has been roped in the present matter along with the principle accused Vishnu. 7. He further submitted that applicant is a lady and co-accused Khubi @ Khubiram, who was although, not named in the FIR but his name was disclosed by the deceased himself in his statement, has granted bail and his bail order has been annexed as Annexure No. 10 to the affidavit, therefore, applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. 8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that deceased before his death gave his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the Investigating Officer and he stated that applicant caught hold him from his neck and thereafter co-accused Vishnu caused fire-arm injury to him, therefore, applicant should not be released on bail but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that role of causing fire-arm injury has been assigned to co-accused Vishnu and role of catching hold was also assigned by the deceased to co- accused Khubi and he has already been released on bail. 9. Learned counsel for the informant further pointed out that bail application of co-accused Hari Om @ Bholi has been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17318 of 2023 and case of applicant is at par with him. He placed the bail rejection order of co-accused Hari Om during the course of argument, which is taken on record and marked as 'A'. He further submitted that considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and bail rejection order of co-accused Hari Om, applicant should not be released on bail. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. Admittedly, co-accused Vishnu caused fire-arm injury to the deceased and role of catching hold has been assigned not only to the applicant but to as many as 5 other accused persons and deceased in his statement not only disclosed the name of the applicant but he also stated that co-accused Vishnu caused fire-arm injury to him and only assigned the role of catching hold to the applicant. 12. Further, co-accused Khubi, who was although, not named in the FIR but his complicity was revealed through the statement of the deceased, who also assigned the role of catching hold to him, has been released on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Although, bail application of Hari Om has been dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court but law is settled that there can be no parity of the bail rejection order and further, applicant is a lady, therefore, her case is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Hari Om. 13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant, who is a lady, is entitled to be released on bail. 14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 15. Let the applicant- Smt. Geeta be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 16. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 17. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 7.7.2023 / KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad