The Allahabad High Court has allowed the bail application of a murder accused, who was summoned in a cursory manner under Section 319 of CrPC.
A single-judge bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by a woman accused.
The applicant, Puspha Devi, has moved the bail application seeking bail in Case under Sections 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station Mohammadpur Khala, District Barabanki.
The counsel for the applicant submitted that the accused applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. It is further submitted that the applicant was not named in the FIR and she was summoned under Section 319 CrPC on the premise of statements of witnesses in the trial court who have maliciously taken the name of applicant with intention to implicate the applicant falsely. The complainant in her statement before the trial court has not taken the name of the applicant.
As per prosecution case, the main role has been assigned to co-accused Gajraj Singh, who has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of the Court order dated 24.04.2019. One another co-accused, Jaikaran Singh @ Chhoti, who was not named in the FIR and was summoned under Section 319 CrPC has also been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of the Court order dated 26.02.2020 passed in bail No 10612 of 2020, and the case of applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the co-accused, Jaikaran Singh @ Chhoti, who has been enlarged on bail.
The counsel for the applicant further submitted that the summoning order dated 31.07.2019 is also against the spirit of various judgments of the Supreme Court. He placed reliance upon a judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others, (2014) 3 SCC 92.
The counsel for the applicant also submitted that prosecution story as set up is totally false and fabricated, no role has been assigned to the applicant, no incriminating article has been recovered from her possession or on her pointing out, the recover of alleged E-Shram Card of applicant from the place of occurrence is false and implanted by the police, there is no strong motive against the applicant and the alleged motive of dispute of money shown by the complainant is baseless and has no force because the alleged amount was taken by the deceased about ten years ago and since then there was no dispute and the applicant has falsely been implicated in the case, therefore, she should be released on bail by the Court sympathetically.
It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that she is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make herself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon her. The applicant undertakes that in case she is released on bail she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history, which fact has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of bail application. The applicant has been in jail since 21.04.2022 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the courts, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
AGA opposed the prayer for bail, but has not disputed that the applicant was not named in the FIR and her name surfaced for the first time in the statements of the witnesses.
“After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, and considering the fact that the applicant was not named in the FIR; her name was taken by the witnesses and she was summoned under Section 319 CrPC, whereupon the court below has not applied its judicial mind and in a cursory manner summoned the applicant to face the trial; and the main accused, Gajraj Singh has already been granted bail; another co-accused, Jaikaran Singh @ Chhoti, who was also not named and was summoned under Section 319 CrPC, has also been granted bail, as well as considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Hardeep Singh (supra), Labhuji Amratji Thakor (supra), Brijendra Singh (supra), Periyasami and others (supra) and Dataram Singh vs State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, the Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail,” the Court observed while allowing the application.
The Court ordered,
Let the applicant, Puspha Devi, involved in Case under Sections 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station Mohammadpur Khala, District Barabanki, be enlarged on bail on her executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-
(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and her personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 CrPC is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(6) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant’s bail.