Allowed

Smt. Nida Parveen v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 May 2020BAIL/9848/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of a woman accused of attempted murder and conspiracy under Section 328 and 120B IPC. The court held that the prosecution's medical evidence was insufficient to substantiate the charge of administering poison. Bail was granted with conditions, including eventual furnishing of sureties once court functioning was normalized.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond with two sureties to be furnished later, subject to strict conditions regarding attendance and no abuse of liberty.

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

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9848 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Nida Parveen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Harsh Vardhan Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

This bail application has been listed before me pursuant to the direction of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 04.04.2020 for consideration, therefore, same is being decided in Chamber under the extraordinary condition prevailing now a days.

¶6

Written objection/short submission filed by learned AGA today which is taken on record.

¶7

The order sheet shows that though Sri Harshvardhan Gupta, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the informant on 05.03.2020 but till date neither counter affidavit nor any written objection has been filed by him.

¶8

The Court has gone through the pleadings, statements and other material brought on record and now this Court is proceeded to decide the bail application pursuant to the above mentioned directions.

¶9

Mohd. Sagir Ahmad- informant has lodged the FIR on 29.10.2019 for the incident said to have been taken place on 20.08.2019 (approximately after inordinate delay of 70 days) under Section 328 and 120B IPC, P.S. Kaimari, District Rampur against the applicant and on Qadeer. The applicant is a lady and legally wedded wife of alleged injured Tahseen Raza.

¶10

The story as culled out from the FIR that informant's son Tahseen Raza (28 years) married to the applicant, was found in his room and the frauth is coming out from his mouth and it has been mentioned in the FIR, that according to the informant, it seems that his son has suffered from mild brain haemorrhage. The injured was admitted in Sai Hospital Moradabad, where the surgery was conducted at the private hospital at Moradabad.

¶11

Thereafter his wife revealed the fact that, on the fateful night injured has vomited profusely. Even after the said surgery, the requisite progress was not done, then the injured was shifted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi in a vegetative state. During this period of seventy days, the informant from the unknown sources collected the fact that injured's wife Ms. Nida Parveen(applicant) was nurturing an illicit relationship with coaccused Qadeer and she might have administered some poisonous substance to the applicant. It is further alleged that his son has checked the mobile of the applicant and found that there was a obscene chatting between the applicant and her accomplice and therefore, come to the conclusion that named accused persons has hatched the conspiracy to eliminate the victim Mohd. Tahseen Raza.

¶12

The I.O. of the case has recorded the statement of Dr. Satnam Singh

¶13

Changda, Dr. Anshul Gupta, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi and Dr. Muneet Agarwal, Neurosurgeon of Sai Hospital, Mordabad and none of the doctors has subscribed to the theory of administration of poison to the injured, the medical report of the Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi reveals that the injured have treated for NCCT Head was done on 21.10.2019 which revealed asymmetric dilatation of the right laterial ventricle with periventricular CSF ooze. Therefore it is clear that the prosecution story is unsupported by medical. It is interesting to point out that marriage between the applicant and the injured is an outcome of love marriage and therefore there is no question of committing this offence. The applicant is in jail since 30.10.2019 and trial has not been concluded.

¶14

Taking into account the prosecution story is unsupported by medical and on the bald and imaginary story crafted by the prosecution, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 03.10.2019, is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

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 applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant, Smt. Nida Parveern , who is involved in Case Crime No. 374 of 2019, under Sections 328, 120B IPC, P.S. Kaimari, District Rampur, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶17

(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS ARE 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 THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶21

(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 APPLICANTS.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 1.5.2020 Abhishek Sri.

Smt. Nida Parveen v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nida Parveen 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

Lakhan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Abu Sujat Vs State of U.P.

Kishori Lal Rathor Vs State of U.P.

Sawez @ Gattu Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Samir Vs State of U.P.