Court No. - 18 Case :- BAIL No. - 5203 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Manju Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Saurabh Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- G.A. Hon'ble S.N.H. Zaidi,J.
Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State in Court is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the material on record.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant are that applicant is not
named in the report of the case, which is based on circumstantial evidence.
The only circumstance alleged against the applicant is that one Prem Kumar
had seen deceased Shubham, a boy of about 11 years, going towards jungle
with the applicant at about 4.00 p.m. and after sometime the applicant was
seen returning alone from the jungle and the dead body of the boy was
recovered from that jungle on the next day. It is pointed out that Prem Kumar
had disclosed about that circumstance on the 3rd day of the recovery of the
dead body and the explanation of delay given by him that he was fearing that
he might be implicated in the murder of the boy is not sufficient and
unacceptable. It is also submitted that one Rajendra Singh has stated that he
had seen the deceased with two persons, namely, Hirdaya and Harku alias
Ram Harak at about 7.00 in the evening and Ram Harak @ Harku had
allegedly made extra judicial confession before one Sadhan Singh that he had
killed Shubham with the help of Hirdaya as he had seen the applicant in an
objectionable position and had told her that he would complain about that to
his father. It has been pointed out that the husband of the applicant and the
father of the deceased are cousin brothers. It is also submitted that link
evidence about the presence of deceased from 4 to 7 p.m. is missing, which
makes the entire case doubtful.
Learned A.Ġ.A. opposed the bail but no other incriminating circumstance
could have been shown against the applicant.
Considering the specific circumstance alleged against the applicant and the
points pertaining to the nature of accusation, severity of punishment,
reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses, prima facie satisfaction
regarding proposed evidence, genuineness of the prosecution case and without
commenting upon the merit of the case, the applicant appears entitled to bail.
Application is, accordingly, allowed.
Let applicant Smt. Manju, involved in Case Crime NO.761 of 2009 under
sections 302/201/120-B/34 I.P.C., Police Station Shivgarh, District Raebareli,
be enlarged on bail on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
Order Date :- 14.7.2010
ank