Allowed

Smt. Pooja Gupta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2023BAIL/13226/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application under Sections 498A, 352, 328, and 506 IPC and D.P. Act challenging an alleged attempt to poison a sister-in-law. The court noted the lack of medical evidence confirming poisoning and the existence of an FIR by the applicant against the victim lodged just prior to the victim's complaint.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Smt. Pooja Gupta was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.

Smt. Pooja Gupta Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13226 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Pooja Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Shukla,Shivam Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gajendra Pratap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the applicant and short counter affidavit on behalf of the informant filed today in Court, which are taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.K.Vaish, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to released him on bail in Case Crime No. 283 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 352,328 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Applicant is the married sister-in-law of the informant/victim and FIR of the present case was lodged against her and her family members including her brother, i.e., husband of informant and according to the FIR on 6.4.2021 at about 9.00 AM in the morning applicant along with co-accused Soni (her cousin sister) forcibly administered phenol to her bhabhi,i..e, informant and thereafter informant/victim had to admit in the Hospital.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire allegation against the applicant is totally false and baseless and applicant is the married sister-in-law of the informant and as she did not

¶10

like her, therefore, only due to this reason on the basis of totally false allegation, FIR of the present case was lodged. He further submits that FIR of the present case was lodged on 8.4.2021 at about 3.25 PM with regard to the incident dated 6.4.2021 occurred at about 9.00 AM and applicant also lodged an FIR against the informant and others and her mother on 8.4.2021 at about 3.05 PM, i.e., about 20 minutes prior to the FIR of the present case and as soon as informant/victim came to know about this fact she totally on the basis of false and frivolous allegation lodged FIR against her.

¶11

He further submits that except the bald and verbal allegation of administration of phenol, there is no other evidence against her in this regard and when the statement of Doctor was recorded then he clearly stated that victim, i.e., the informant of the case (Bhabhi of the applicant) was fully fit and conscious and he did not state in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that any poisonous substances was administered to her.

¶12

He further submits that admittedly victim/informant of the case did not sustain even a single scratch and this fact completely belies the prosecution version as if two persons forcibly administered some poisonous liquid to such person then he/she would definitely resist and in the incident injured must sustain some injury although minor in nature.

¶13

He next submits that applicant is lady and she is not having any previous criminal history except some FIR with regard to some dispute arose between her and informant and he is in jail in the present matter since 2.3.2023, i.e., for the last about over a month.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and

¶15

submitted that applicant is married sister-in-law of the informant and she although resides her matrimonial home but very frequently she used to interfere marital affairs of the informant and due to her interference the relationship of the informant and her husband became strained and on 6.4.2021 she along with her cousin sister, co-accused Soni, forcibly administered phenol to the informant due to which informant had to admit in the Hospital and anyhow her life could be saved.

¶16

Learned counsel for the informant further submitted that in the FIR as well as in the statement of the victim recorded during investigation there is specific allegation against the applicant that she along with co-accused Soni administered phenol to the informant and she had to remain in the Hospital for about 24 hours but the learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant could not dispute the fact that except the bald and verbal allegation made by the victim/informant, there is no medical evidence in this regard which can show that informant/victim consumed any phenol and Doctor also clearly opined that when she came to Hospital then she was conscious and was not having any problem and both the learned counsels further could not dispute the fact that before lodgement of the present case about 20 minutes before applicant has lodged an FIR against the informant/victim of the present matter and her mother.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶18

Applicant is the married sister-in-law of the informant and it appears that some dispute is pending between both the parties and although there is specific allegation against the applicant that she along with her cousin sister, co-accused Soni, forcibly

¶19

administered poison to the informant and due to that she also admitted in the Hospital but except the bald and verbal allegation of the informant there is no medical evidence in this regard. Rather, when the statement of Doctor was recorded by Investigating Officer during investigation then he categorically stated that informant/victim was fully conscious and she was healthy too and, therefore, even after vomiting her sample was not taken and he did not opine that she ever consume any phenol.

¶20

Further, FIR of the present case was lodged on 8.4.2021 at about 3.25 PM and an FIR was lodged by applicant herself against the informant and her mother on the same day, i.e., 8.4.2021 at about 3.05 PM, i.e., 20 minutes before and therefore, possibility at this stage cannot be ruled out that due to previous FIR of applicant, the FIR of the present case was lodged by informant, who is her bhabhi.

¶21

The applicant is a married lady and she is in jail in the present matter since 2.3.2023.

¶22

Therefore, from the discussions made above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶23

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶24

Let the applicant- Smt. Pooja Gupta be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶25

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless hers personal presence is exempted.

¶26

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶27

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶29

Order Date :- 11.4.2023 SKM

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Pooja Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pooja Gupta 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naushad Vs State of U.P.

Naseer @ Guddu @ Pan Vs State of U.P.

Tahir Khan Vs State of U.P.

Sreedhar P Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Aarif Vs State of U.P.