Roshni Sonker v. State of U.P

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12484 of 2023 Applicant :- Roshni Sonker Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arti Shrivastava,Usha Srivastava,Vinod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶2This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 202 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304 B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. He further submits that the applicant is unmarried Nanad of the deceased. Entire family members of the applicant i.e. son, wife, married daughter, unmarried daughter have been implicated in the present case. The applicant has neither demanded for additional dowry nor he tortured the deceased. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. Prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶4It is further submitted that co accused mother-in-law, father-in-law and Nandoi have already been granted anticipatory bail vide orders dated 8.8.2023, 27.07.2023 and 21.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.7365, 7548 and 12386 of 2023. The case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is having definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.

¶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 applicants, they are 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 applicants 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 Roshni Sonker involved in the aforesaid crime 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 the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

(1) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

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

(3) The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

(4) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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 applicants.

(5) In case, the applicant misuse 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.

(6) 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 her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶8In 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 applicants.

¶9With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 22.11.2023 RavindraKSingh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad