Manju Devi vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—AGA has filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and AGA for the State.

3.The allegation against the applicant Smt. Manju Devi is that she had set the deceased Smt. Seema Devi on fire on catching hold by coaccused Ram Katori on 23.01.2008.

4.The first and foremost submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the coaccused Ram Katori, who has been assigned the role of catching hold the deceased, has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court, vide order dated 23.09.2008, passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 12752 of 2008 and hence, on the principle of parity, the applicant deserves bail. On this point it is suffice to say that the parity is not the sole ground for granting bail, as held by this Court in Shahnawaz @ Sanu vs. State of U.P.2007 (66) ACC 189. Therefore, the applicant cannot be released on bail on the basis of the bail order dated 23.09.2008, whereby the coaccused Smt. Ram Katori has been granted bail. Moreover, from the dying declaration (annexure4), this fact is borne out that the role of pouring kerosene and setting the deceased on fire has been attributed to the applicant Smt. Manju Devi, whereas the role of catching hold was assigned to coaccused Smt. Ram Katori. Hence on this ground also, the applicant can not be released on bail on the ground of parity.

5.On merit, it is submitted by learned counsel that in the FIR lodged by husband of the deceased on 29.02.2008, the applicant was not named and subsequently, she has been falsely roped in this case.

6.Next submission is that the applicant is in jail since 30.07.2008 and hence, on the basis of long detention period in jail, the applicant deserves bail now, as due to delay in trial, her fundamental right of speedy trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is being violated.

7.The bail has been opposed by the learned AGA contending that in the dying declaration, specific role of setting the deceased on fire has been attributed to the applicant and hence, in this heinous crime, she should not be granted bail.

8.I have carefully gone through the dying declaration of the deceased Smt. Seema Devi, which was recorded by the Addl. City MagistrateIII, Agra, on 24.01.2008. Specific role of pouring kerosene and setting the deceased on fire has been assigned to the applicant. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, in this heinous crime, the applicant does not deserve bail.

In my considered opinion, the applicant can not be admitted to bail on the basis of the period of detention in jail also. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and others 2008 (63) ACC 115, in which the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be perse illegal. If the applicant has committed offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Consequently, the bail application is hereby rejected.

The trial court concerned is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant within a period of six months applying the provisions of section 309 Cr.P.C. and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

SSP Agra also is directed to depute special messenger to procure the attendance of the witnesses after obtaining their summons from the court concerned and it must be ensured that witnesses are produced for evidence in the session trial arising out of case crime No. 40 of 2008, under section 304 IPC of P.S. Jagner, District Agra without causing any delay.

The Office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the trial court concerned and SSP Agra for necessary action.