Allahabad High Court
Smt. Pooja vs State Of U.P. on 1 March, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37262 of 2020
Applicant :- Smt. Pooja
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Kumar Singh,Prakash Chandra Srivastava,Rakesh Kumar Singh,Sujata Choudhary,Sunil Vashisth
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Upadhyay
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Sunil Vashisth, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.264 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Vijaynagar, District Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge her on bail.
5. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 5.12.2019 on merits.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken up three new grounds for bail (i) the period of incarceration of the applicant as he is in jail since 17.3.2019, (ii) that the witnesses of fact have been examined and there is no possibility of applicant tampering with evidence and (iii) that the two witnesses who happen to be children of the applicant have not been interrogated by the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel has further stated that an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the applicant as the cross-examination could not be taken up with respect to the witnesses PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. The applicant being a lady may be granted bail on these grounds. There is no criminal history of the applicant.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the delay in trial cannot be attributed to the prosecution and it is the accused persons who have not taken up the cross-examination of witnesses and the witnesses have turned up during trial several times. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that the applicant is the main accused person and it is she who had got the dead body of the deceased person recovered at her pointing out.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the evidence on record and also considering the factum that application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the counsel of the applicant himself, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order or as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 1.3.2023
Vikas
