Allahabad High Court
Pooja Devi vs State Of U.P. on 14 November, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12262 of 2022
Applicant :- Pooja Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ambreesh Kumar
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State, learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.129 of 2021 under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Ikdil, District Etawah.
3. As per contents of first information report, the informant obtained knowledge on 30.04.2021 that the body of his son Gaurav was lying in front of house of applicant. Suspicion has been cast upon applicant for having committed his murder on account of previous enmity.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that charge sheet has been filed only under Section 302 I.P.C. and there is no direct evidence indicating the fact that it is the applicant who has committed the murder particularly when there are three other persons also named in the F.I.R. It is submitted that even as per the two eye witness accounts, the only role ascribed to applicant is of keeping the body near the well in front of her house. The eye witnesses do not state that they have ever seen the applicant actually committing the crime. It is submitted that as of now only two prosecution witnesses have been examined whereas there are a total of 21 prosecution witnesses and applicant is in jail since 02.05.2021. As such, it is submitted that there is no hope of early conclusion of trial.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with submission that motive for committing the murder has clearly been stated by informant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. There are two eye witness accounts indicating role of applicant and the fact that the recovery of murder instruments as well as Aadhar Card of deceased have been made from house of applicant. It is, however admitted that as yet only two prosecution witnesses have been examined.
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that applicant has been named in the F.I.R. on the basis of motive and suspicion. There appear to be two eye witnesses who however do not appear to have seen the applicant actually committing the crime although charge sheet against applicant has been filed under Section 302 IPC only. There does not appear to be any report of Forensic Science Laboratory as yet available with regard to alleged recovery made from the house of applicant who is in jail since 02.05.2021 with only two prosecution witnesses having yet been examined with a total of 21 prosecution witnesses. The respondents have not made any submission that the applicant at any time did not cooperate in the investigation or trial. As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Pooja Devi, involved in the aforesaid case crime 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:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is 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 her in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 14.11.2022
kvg/-
