Poonam Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:8387

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19 of 2024

Applicant :- Poonam Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- R.B.S. Rathaur,Sachin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as Sri Rohit Kannojiya, learned Advocate for the complainant who has filed Vakalatnama which is taken on record.

¶7

Prosecution case is that in the FIR daughter of the informant was married to the applicant in the November 2019 and after that entire family of her in-laws used to harass the deceased for demand of dowry. On 18.07.2023 at 9:30 hours, the deceased informed to the informant that she has been beaten by the family members of her in-laws and at anytime she may be killed. On the same day at 16:00 hours, the informant was informed that health of the deceased is deteriorating and when they reached at the house of the applicant, they found dead body of the deceased.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. Husband Rahul Chaurasiya of the deceased has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2024 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 712 of 2024. It has been further submitted that co-accused Ashish Chaurasiya has also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13105 of 2023 and similarly, co-accused Pooja Chaurasiya and Amit Chaurasiya (Jethani and Jeth of the deceased) have also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13652 of 2023. He seeks parity with the order of the co-accused Rahul Chaurasiya.

¶9

It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that cause of death could not ascertained during the postmortem report. Viscera was preserved and aluminum phosphate was found in the FSL report. Role assigned to the applicant is similar to that of the co-accused Rahul Chaurasiya.

¶10

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer, however, could not dispute that it is a case of parity.

¶12

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that although coaccused Rahul Chaurasiya has been enlarged on bail, he had extended threats to the informant from jail.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant being a lady cannot be held responsible for any act committed by the co-accused while he was in jail.

¶14

On due consideration to the bail order of Rahul Chaurasiya as well as other as well as other co-accused persons Pooja Chaurasiya, Amit Chaurasiya and Ashish Chaurasiya as well as considering the fact that the applicant is a lady aged about 55 years; she is languishing in jail since 03.08.2023 without having any criminal antecedent and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant, Poonam Devi, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 306/2023, under Sections 489-A/304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Asandra, District - Barabanki, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(iii) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she

¶21

shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶22

(v) 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 her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(vi) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

Order Date :- 29.1.2024 R.C.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Poonam Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Budhana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Balak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Ram Dayal Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Sojab Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Raees Ahmad @ Dabbu and Another Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Rajendra Kumar Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.