The Single Judge allowed bail to Rajmati Dhangar, a female accused in a murder case, noting that the only evidence against her was last seen evidence, which was also against a co-accused already released on bail.
Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding attendance and non-tampering with evidence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9827 of 2022
Applicant :- Rajmati Dhangar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Agarwal,Saurabh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Rajmati Dhangar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 65 of 2021, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. registered at P.S.- Chopan, District-Sonbhadra.
The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is a lady and except last seen evidence there is no other evidence on record against the applicant. He further submits that the F.I.R. of the present case was lodged after the inquest and post mortem and during inquest report informant was one of the Panch and at that time he did not raise any alarm but later on by putting false story he implicated the applicant along with co-accused Sonu Rai. He further submitted that coaccused Sonu Rai has already been enlarged on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.02.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2200 of 2021. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that as against the co-accused Sonu Rai there was allegation under provisions of S.C./S.T. therefore, he filed Criminal Appeal against his bail rejection order and as co-accused Sonu Rai has already been enlarged on bail, therefore, on ground of parity applicant may be released on bail as the case of the applicant is at par with co-accused Sonu Rai.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant was second wife of the deceased and she was having illicit relationship with co-accused Sonu Rai therefore, merely on the ground of parity the applicant cannot be released on bail and there is clear evidence against her that she was last seen along with the deceased and co-accused Sonu Rai, therefore, the bail application of the applicant should be rejected.
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 and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and as applicant is lady and only evidence against her is of last seen which was also against Sonu Rai and imilarly placed co-accused Sonu Rai has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, therefore, in my considered view, applicant may also be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant - Rajmati Dhangar , 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 his 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 him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and
try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
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.
The bail application is allowed .
Order Date :- 21.3.2022
SY
Digitally signed by SWETA YADAV Date: 2022.03.24 10:36:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant Rajmati Dhangar should be granted bail during trial in a murder case.
Whether the applicant can be released on bail in parity with a co-accused who has already been granted bail.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajmati Dhangar
State of U.P.
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
