Allowed

Tarzen Shaw v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2023BAIL/54972/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant in a case of abetment to suicide. Despite the court not expressing an opinion on the merits, it found sufficient grounds to release the applicant on personal bond along with heavy sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to standard conditions including non-tampering with evidence and witnesses.

Tarzen Shaw Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54972 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Tarzen Shaw Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Shukla,Rajesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 102 of 2019, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Khoda, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted against the applicant and his mother Rukmani that they had subjected the deceased (Smt. Rekha) to cruelty and had abetted her to commit suicide in the night of 16/17.2.2019 in her house.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has further stated that the FIR is delayed by two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The information at the police station was provided by the applicant only and the inquest proceedings were taken up by the police on 17.2.2019 itself and the postmortem was also conducted the same day. The prosecution witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have not supported the prosecution story. They have completely resiled from their earlier statement given to the I.O. and the allegations of the FIR. The witnesses have been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring them hostile. There is no possibility of conviction in the present case under the circumstances. Learned counsel has next stated that the suicide note purported to have been collected by the investigating officer during the investigation does not indicate as to the instigation given by the applicant to the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel has further stated that the ingredients of Section 107 IPC are not fulfilled as such.

¶10

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.2.2019. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, 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 .

¶13

Let the applicant- Tarzen Shaw involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶14

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

iv. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶18

v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶20

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

Order Date :- 1.3.2023 Shalini

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tarzen Shaw v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarzen Shaw 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranveer Vs State of U.P.

Anshu @ Praveen Vs State of U.P.

Lokesh @ Yash @ Bhati Vs State of U.P.

Shambhu Nath Prajapati and Another Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Bahadur Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Seetu Vs State of U.P.