Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 791 (ALL)

Babita Pandey v. State of U. P.

2015-04-13

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2015
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Mohd. Afzal Ansari, on behalf of complainant is taken on record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for complainant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record. 3. Submission of the counsel is that the sole evidence against the applicant is that at the time of shooting the victim, the assailants had uttered the expression that the applicant was one of the person who had directed the assailants to shoot the victim. Further submission is that this much evidence is too scanty and tenuous to connect the applicant with the crime. The applicant is languishing in jail since 6.3.2015. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 4. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing for complainant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the utterance made by the assailants at the time of incident are not admissible and can be used as the evidence against the applicant and have admitted that till this stage, no further evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer and the investigation is going on. 5. 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, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant-Babita Pandey, involved in Case Crime No.26 of 2015, u/s 307, 120-B IPC & 7 Crl. 6. Let the applicant-Babita Pandey, involved in Case Crime No.26 of 2015, u/s 307, 120-B IPC & 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act, P.S.-Chakia, District-Chandauli, be released on bail on his 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 in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. 7. 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. 8. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.