REKHA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

(2.) Perused the record.

(3.) Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is a woman, who was married two years back in the family. Further submission is that after coming to know about the quarrel in the village, she herself had requested her husband Hariom Sharma to inform the police as she apprehended that something untoward might happen. It was further submitted that the applicant's husband himself had dialed number 100 and called up the police. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to annexure no. 3 which indicates that Hariom Sharma was the person, who had informed the police that quarrel has taken place in the village. Submission is that if the family members of the applicant might have been on wrong footing then there was no reason for her to make a request to her husband to call up the police, If her own family members are involved in the said incident in question. Further submission is that though according to the version of the F.I.R. the allegation is made that the applicant was armed with lathi or danda but when the injured witness Kalu @ Pratap was examined by the police he has specifically stated that the assault had been made by the co-accused Mulla, Kalu and Balak Ram. The injured witness has not attributed any overt act against the applicant. It was further submitted that though an omnibus generalized statement has been made by the injured-victim that 'Brahmins' accused persons dragged the deceased and the injured to the field and assaulted there by 'farsa', 'danda' and 'sariya' but the same is highly improbable to believe that when several male members variously armed were making assault then why the two women would also participate in the occurrence of this horrible nature and scale. It was also emphasized that another woman-accused who was on her family way and was carrying pregnancy at the time of incident and had subsequently delivered a child also, she has already been released on bail by another bench of this Court on 27.1.2016 on this very ground. Contention is that the applicant being a woman and the daughter-in-law, who was married just two years back, had absolutely no reason to have acted in such a bizarre manner as has been suggested by the prosecution. It has also been emphasized that the conduct of the applicant's husband in informing the police is also not an innocuous circumstance and has its own implications. Further submission is that because three persons lost their lives in this incident and the incident had assumed a communal or cast complexion, therefore, out of vengeance and ire of the family members of the deceased, even the women folk has not been spared and the applicant has fallen prey to the same vendetta and has been made an accused in this case for the same reason. Submission is that the applicant being a woman and having not been attributed any specific overt role in the statement given by the victim, her case is distinguishable from the other co-accused and therefore, she may be enlarged on bail. 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 she is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make herself available before the court whenever required. Much emphasis was laid by the counsel on the period of detention and it has been pointed out that the applicant has spent almost two years in jail and she is languishing behind the bars since 31.7.2014 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.