Antima v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12374 of 2023 Applicant :- Antima Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar,Rakesh Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.Learned counsel for the informant is also present.

¶2This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 249 of 2023, under sections 363, 506 IPC, P.S. Khutahan, District Jaunpur, during the pendency of application.

3.As per contents of the FIR, the minor daughter of the informant is said to have been enticed away by co accused Dileep Nishad. It is further alleged that when the informant and her husband went to the house of the co accused Dileep Nishad, to inquire about her daughter, the applicant who is Bhabhi (sister in law of main accused Dileep Nishad) and other family members scolded the informant with dire consequences.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident is said to have happened on 5.09.2023 and the FIR has been lodged on 15.09.2023 without any explanation of delay. It is further submitted that applicant is lady and a government employee and she is doing job of teacher. It is further submitted that the victim has been recovered and she has not levelled any allegation against the present applicant. Applicant is sister in law of co accused Dileep Nishad and she lives separately. The applicant is having definite apprehension that she may be arrested by the police any time. It is further submitted that the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not levelled any allegation against the present applicant and has stated that she has solemnized marriage with co accused Dileep Nishad.

¶5Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.

¶6Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶7In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Antima involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

(1) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

(2) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

(3) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

(4) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

(5) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

(6) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC

98.

(7) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶7In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶8With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 21.11.2023 RavindraKSingh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad