Reeta and Another v. State of U.P

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12378 of 2023 Applicant :- Reeta And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Ram Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶3The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.657 of 2023 registered under Sections 323, 308, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station-Chandpur, District Bijnor with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶4As per prosecution story, the applicants alongwith two other co-accused persons are stated to have assaulted the son of the informant causing him grievous injuries on 02.09.2023.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants are ladies and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by seven days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The present FIR is a counterblast to the FIR No.634 of 2023 instituted on 03.09.2023 by the sister-in-law of the applicants. Learned counsel has further stated that no role of assault has been assigned to the applicants. As per the injury report of the injured person, the injuries were found about fresh and simple in nature. The said medical examination of Tanuj Kumar has been taken up by the police itself. The said medical report is a medico-legal police case, but in spite of that being taken up on 02.09.2023, the FIR was not instituted. The injury report indicates that alcoholic smell was present with breathing of the injured person.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the case of the applicants is at a different footing to the other named accused persons. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶7Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶8The case of the applicants stands distinguished to the other named accused persons.

¶9On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi),

(2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶10In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants-Reeta and Sudha be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

(iii). that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

(v). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

(vi). that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶11It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. Order Date :- 08.11.2023 Ravi Kant (Krishan Pahal, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad