This judgment grants bail to applicant Poonam Jha in a case involving murder and rioting. The court found it a fit case for bail considering complicity, severity of punishment, and grant of bail to co-accused, without commenting on merits.
Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3923 of 2019
Applicant :- Poonam Jha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Padmaker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Sri Padmaker Pandey, learned counsel for applicant, Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi, learned counsel for first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated in F.I.R. dated 24.11.2017 according to which Vijay Yadav, brother of first informant was sent to prison on 21.11.2016 in a false case by accused Vinay Jha on account of old enmity and had left his house at about 6:00 p.m. by his Bolero vehicle saying that he is coming back after meeting some persons near Armapur Police Station and after leaving of his brother, suspecting of some mishap he followed him on motorcycle and seen that his bolero vehicle was standing by the road side near Armapur Police Station and hearing screams upon proceeding by motorcycle, he seen all the named accused persons and when he chased assailants of his brother, they fled from spot by their vehicles; that it is also mentioned in F.I.R. that he carried his brother Vijay Yadav to Emergency of Halet Hospital by private vehicle informing police and on way his brother stated that he will not survive and his statement be recorded in mobile, upon which he recorded statement of Vijay in his mobile phone, who told him about assault by sharp edged weapons by above persons with an intention to cause his death and after referring him to Regency Hospital, Sarwoday Nagar he was declared dead there; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false, concocted and highly improbable; that dying declaration of deceased allegedly recorded by first informant in his mobile phone at Annexure No.5 does not state as to which of the accused assaulted him by which weapon and played which role, rather only names of named accused and certain unknown persons have been mentioned therein; that post mortem report of deceased states that he sustained multiple incised wounds and lacerated wounds over vital parts of body as well as mandible region with severe damage to internal organs in which condition he may not be expected to even
speak or make any statement; that by way of improvement in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., first informant has assigned weapons and role to accused persons followed by similar statement by Shiv Kumar Yadav, brother-in-law of deceased, who also claims himself to be an eye witness and apart from them Shiv Sahai and Jagat Narayan also made similar statements; that during investigation it was found on the basis of C.C.T.V. footage named accused Vinay Jha (husband of applicant), Vinod Jha and Anoop Jha (son of applicant) were at home at the time of incident and were not at the place of incident, so Vinay Jha and Vinod Jha have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 10.5.2018 and 18.5.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.17478 of 2018 and 18606 of 2018, copies filed at Annexure No.12 and final report was submitted against co-accused Anoop Jha; that as per statement of first informant under section 161 Cr.P.C. he seen assailants in the light of motorcycle that applicant was armed with Chapar and her husband and Jeth Vinod were catching hold of legs of deceased, while other accused persons were armed with dandas; that according to prosecution, place of occurrence is near police station Armapur by the road side in bushes, which is far away from the houses of first informant as well as accused persons; that absence of three out of six named accused persons from the spot makes entire prosecution case false and doubtful; that applicant had no motive to cause death of deceased and moreover in presence of male members causing of incised wounds with Chapar by applicant and catching hold of legs by male members, is false and highly improbable; that confessional statement of applicant in police custody regarding illicit relationship between deceased and applicant is absolutely false and inadmissible in evidence; that applicant is a house wife and has been falsely implicated due to old enmity; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that she will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 26.11.2017.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that F.I.R. version is fully supported with statements of first informant as well as Shiv Kumar, who followed deceased for 2 Kms. upto place of occurrence from home and when first informant followed him by motorcycle, Shiv Kumar followed him on foot by running towards a place of occurrence.
Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, grant of bail to co-accused as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Poonam Jha be released on bail in Case Crime No.54 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34 IPC, P.S. Armapur, District Kanpur Nagar on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that she is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
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.
Order Date :- 6.2.2019 Tamang
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant Poonam Jha is entitled to bail in the stated criminal case.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Poonam Jha
State Of U.P.
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
