Sudha Vishwakarma v. State of U.P

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11312 of 2023 Applicant :- Sudha Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kripesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Sudha Vishwakarma seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 450 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Bansgaon, District-Gorakhpur.

¶3The named accused persons five in number made an assault upon the informant and his wife carrying lathi, danda and iron rod with them and co-accused Ankit made a blow of iron rod on the head of the informant. The informant and his wife sustained injuries in the matter. FIR was lodged on 28.7.2023 under Section 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. and subsequently during course of investigation the matter was converted into 307 I.P.C.

¶4It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that the applicant before this Court is a lady and a general role of assault has been assigned to her. Both the injured persons of this case in their statements given to the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have not assigned any specific role of assault to the present accused applicant. The grevious injuries caused upon the head of the informant with the aid of iron rod have been inflicted by co-accused Ankit. It is further submitted that all the other injuries caused to both the injured persons are simple in nature. The applicant is having no criminal history to her credit, she is cooperating with the investigation of the case, even in the C.T. scan report of the main injured Sanjay Vishwakarma, the informant, the injury has been marked as normal injury. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is vehemently submitted that the present applicant has actively participated in the commission of the offence alleged in this matter.

¶6In the present matter the applicant has been cooperative with the investigation having no criminal history.

¶7In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶8In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶9Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶10The application is allowed accordingly.

¶11In the event of arrest of the applicant, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

(ii) 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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶12In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 31.10.2023 Fhd High Court of Judicature at Allahabad