Rama Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12010 of 2023 Applicant :- Rama Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri D.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶2The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 11 of 2022, under Sections 323, 380, 447, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Badshahinaka, District Kanpur Nagar, with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

¶3As per prosecution story, father of the applicant was the tenant of the informant, who in turn is stated to have sublet the said house to Sandeep Pandey. The said Sandeep Pandey alongwith some other persons is stated to have assaulted the informant causing injuries to him.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of her arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR was instituted against Sandeep Pandey on 12.5.2022 only. There is no date and time of the offence mentioned in the FIR. It is next stated that the allegations pertain to Rent Control Act and has been converted to criminal case by the applicant. The applicant being a lady, and not named in the FIR, is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶5Several 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. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, she will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶6On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and has informed that the proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. were already initiated against the applicant on 12.10.2023, as such, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail, in light of the judgement of the Apex Court passed in Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730.

¶7In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that she had already applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Kanpur, and the same was rejected on 13.10.2023 itself, as such, the said exercise has been taken up at the behest of the informant. The exception can be drawn qua the applicant.

¶8On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶9Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

¶10In the event of arrest of the applicant, Rama Shukla involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:- i. that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. that 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶11In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶12It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory 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. (Justice Krishan Pahal) Order Date :- 17.11.2023 Shalini High Court of Judicature at Allahabad