SANJAY KUMAR SINGH,J. - (1.) In Re: Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 1 of 2020.
(2.) On 15.6.2020 following order was passed by this Court:- "Sri Dinesh Tiwari, Advocate has filed his Parcha on behalf of the first informant, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant and perused the record. By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in case crime no. 691 of 2019, under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Shahganj, District- Agra, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is mother-in-law of the first informant Smt. Arti Devi. Marriage of Smt. Arti Devi was solemnized eight years back with Mohit Sharma (son of the applicant), but their marriage was not successful as a result thereof, Smt. Arti Sharma lodged FIR on 16.09.2019 for the offence under Section 498A , 323 , 406 , 504 , 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act against her husband, Mohit Sharma, mother-in-law, Guddi Sharma (applicant) and Rajkumar, father-in-law. Thereafter, applicant also lodged FIR on 13.11.2019 under Sections 452 , 504 , 323 IPC against Munni Devi, Ashish Pachauri, Yashpal Pachauri @ Hariom Pachauri and Arti Sharma (informant of this case), which has been appended as Annexure No. 10 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that after lodging the aforesaid FIR dated 13.11.2019, the first informant (Smt. Arti Sharma) lodged FIR on 12.12.2019 under Section 307 IPC against applicant, Rajkumar and Mohit Sharma as a counterblast case. It is next submitted that Smt. Arti Sharma in her first statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has made an allegation against her husband Mohit Sharma only, but later on she in her second statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also levelled allegation against the present applicant Guddi Sharma alongwith her husband Mohit Sharma. In the medical examination report doctor has given opinion that it may be a case of throttling (attempted). It is also pointed out that on account of harassment of Smt. Arti Sharma, applicant alongwith her husband was living in old age Ashram at Agra, as she has been ousted by her daughter-in-law. It is also submitted that at present applicant, her husband and her son all are in jail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.01.2020 and the applicant undertakes that in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant vehemently opposed by contending that first informant in her second statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has raised allegation against the present applicant also, but did not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant Smt. Guddi Sharma, 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 shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) 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. 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) 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 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. (v) The applicant shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. (vi) The computer generated copy of this order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. (vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. (viii) In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.), shall also be complied with. The order reads thus: "Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release." 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. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order."
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, namely, Smt. Guddi Sharma and Raj Kumar Sharma, but due to his mistake serial number of the applicants could not be mentioned in the bail application. However, while granting bail vide order dated 15.6.2020 only name of applicant, Guddi Sharma has been mentioned in the order dated 15.6.2020, whereas name of applicant No. 2, Raj Kumar Sharma has not been mentioned in said order. Learned counsel for the applicants also submitted that in the caption of the order dated 15.6.2020, the name of applicant No. 2 Raj Kumar Sharma has not been mentioned.;