Allahabad High Court
Poonam Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 November, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176210
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39682 of 2024
Applicant :- Poonam Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. It is informed that the applicant is an indigent lady. She has approached the High Court Legal Services Committee through Jailer, District Jail, Deoria. The High Court Legal Services Committee has appointed Sri Abhishek Sharma, Advocate as Amicus Curiae to argue this matter.
3. Heard Sri Abhishek Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae for the applicant and Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia , learned State Law Officer and also perused the material available on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 011 of 2024, under Section 302 of I.P.C. and Sections 4/25 of Arms Act, Police Station - Vishnupura, District - Kushinagar, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The FIR was instituted against unknown person by the informant stating that his grand daughter-in-law had seen the dead body of his son on 06.01.2024 at about 08:00 AM. The applicant is the wife of the deceased person.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
5. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. She has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.
6. The FIR is delayed by more than four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
7. The applicant is not named in the FIR. Later on, she has falsely been implicated by the Investigating Officer just to show good work.
8. The only evidence against the applicant is that the deceased person was a drunkard and the applicant has taken certain loan on his behest and when she asked for the money from the deceased, he used to beat her.
9. A false recovery of saree, mobile and baka has been shown from the possession of the applicant.
10. It is argued that the applicant is a person of small means, as such, she could not engage any counsel.
11. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.
12. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.01.2018, having no criminal history to her credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE BY STATE LAW OFFICER:
13. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.
CONCLUSION:
14. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.
15. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.
16. Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".
17. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
18. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned State Law Officer.
19. 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.
20. Let the applicant- Poonam Devi, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and one surety 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.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 him in accordance with law.
21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
22. 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 based on the testimony of the witnesses.
23. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Amicus Curiae has assisted the Court very diligently. This Court record the appreciation for the able assistance rendered by him and he would be entitled to his fee as per the Rules of the High Court Legal Services Committee, without any delay and, in any case, within 15 days from the receipt of a copy of this judgment/order.
24. Office is directed to provide a copy of this order to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee through the learned Registrar General of this Court at the earliest for necessary compliance.
Order Date:- 11.11.2024
Siddhant
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
