Allowed

Pooja v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2020BAIL/36257/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 306 IPC regarding suicide abetment, the applicant argued lack of evidence and her peaceful domestic life. The court noted the ambiguity in the motive for suicide and the lack of positive material against the applicant. Relying on Article 21 and Supreme Court precedent, the court allowed bail subject to specific conditions to ensure trial proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions including appearance in court and prohibition of adjournment seeking.

Pooja Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36257 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Pooja Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Kumar Pandey, Ajay Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Neeraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application filed on behalf of Pooja seeking her bail in connection with Case Crime No.204 of 2020, u/s 306 I.P.C., P.S.-Kannauj, District-Kannauj.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the wife of the deceased-husband, who has been charged for abetting her husband to commit suicide. It is further contended that the mother of the deceased Draupadi Tiwari has lodged the F.I.R. on 17.03.2020 against her daughter-in-law Pooja and others, with the allegation that in the year 2013 the informant's son Shailendra Tiwari got married with the applicant. This marriage was the result of love affair between Shailendra (deceased) and Pooja (applicant) and the deceased used to work in some private mobile company. Not only this, the deceased was also a ' Ghar Jamai '. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the deceased's in-laws have a control over the salary and other financial matters of the deceased. On 16.2.2020 there was a marriage of deceased's sister, in which the deceased has participated and after coming back, he has consumed some poisonous substance.

¶8

I have perused 161 statement of the informant, in which she clearly stated that she has distributed the share of her landed property to both her sons and Shailendra Tiwari (the deceased) has given his portion of land on a rent ( batai ). It is not clear that from the record as to who has abetted the deceased to take this ultimate step of self immolation. The deceased has consumed some poisonous substance and ended his life. The viscera is preserved and its report is awaited. In the totality of circumstances it may be said that it is still a mystery that who has abetted the deceased to consume poisonous substance. There is no positive material on record to establish that on what account the deceased has self immolated. Contention of the

¶9

counsel is that the applicant, who is the wife and with whom the deceased has married and was residing peacefully as 'Ghar Jamai' , cannot be said to be abetted or goaded her husband for taking this extreme step. The applicant is in jail since 07.08.2020 having no possibility of early conclusion of trial. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Pooja, who is involved in aforesaid Case Crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶14

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶15

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶16

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶17

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶20

1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶21

2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶22

3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶23

4. 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.

¶24

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶25

Order Date :- 26.11.2020/M. Kumar

Pooja v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gabbar Vs State of U.P.

Rajneesh Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Vs State of U.P.

Chandrabhan Vs State of U.P.

Rupesh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P.