Smt Pooja Rastogi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33364

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9994 of 2024

Appellant :- Smt Pooja Rastogi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Dileep Kumar,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Smt Pooja Rastogi with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.9.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bareilly involved in Case Crime No. 299 of 2024 under Sections 87/103(1), 61(2) B.N.S. & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Hafizganj, District- Bareilly.

¶8

The prosecution has come forward with a case that the deceased Laxmi was having some extra marital affairs with the main accused of this case Monu @ Pawan Gupta, who later on in criminal conspiracy with his wife Smt. Pooja Rastogi, the present appellant, kidnapped the deceased and with the aid of his wife he committed the murder of the deceased. FIR was lodged and now the charge sheet has been submitted.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against her. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted the prosecution story is purely unreliable and not plausible. It is further submitted that even if the husband of the present appellant was having some illicit relation with the deceased, the present appellant had no motive at all to do away with the deceased in criminal conspiracy with her husband. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the

¶10

prosecution version. The anti mortem injuries although found by the doctor at the time of post mortem over the body of the deceased but the present appellant is not concerned at all with the injuries sustained by the deceased. It is also submitted that the role of catching hold has been assigned to the present appellant by the prosecution but this plea is based solely upon the confession made by the husband of the present appellant in the police custody. It is further submitted that another co-accused Sonu @ Sanjiv Gupta, who was also charged for making criminal conspiracy with the other accused persons for the murder of the deceased has been granted bail by allowing the appeal by this Court. It is further submitted that the so called recovery of murder weapon banka on the pointing out of the husband of the appellant is a false and concocted story of the prosecution and the FSL report in respect of the alleged murder weapon also does not stand in support of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the appellant before this Court is a lady and some days before she has been blessed with the child in the jail. The trial Court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Appellant is in jail since 18.7.2024. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶11

On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 18.9.2024. It is further submitted that the present appellant actively participated in the commission of the crime and she had been present at every step with her husband but however he could not dispute this factual position that the present appellant is mainly charged for making criminal conspiracy with his husband and murder actually was caused by the husband of the appellant namely Monu @ Pawan Gupta.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶13

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, incarceration period, no criminal history on the part of the appellant, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial

¶14

Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶15

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside .

¶16

Let the the above named appellant involved in the aforesaid crime 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. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶17

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

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

¶19

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶20

(v) The appellant 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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Fhd

¶23

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Pooja Rastogi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pooja Rastogi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases