Smt. Kanti Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12835 of 2023 Applicant :- Smt. Kanti Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Bahadur,Ram Sajiwan Prajapati Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants 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.1067A/2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Mudhapandey, District-Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants are lady aged about 51 and 61 years have been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that P.W.1 Sharda Devi who is alleged victim as well as injured has become hostile before the court below, copy of chief and cross examination of the victim is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that injuries are simple in nature. The applicants are having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 23 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that applicants have apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶4Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶5Hence 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 applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶6In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants-Smt. Kanti Devi and Smt. Rumaliya Devi 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:-

(i) The applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during trial.

(ii) 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.

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

(iv) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

(v) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

(vi) In case, the applicants 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.

(vii) The applicants 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 their 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 allowed. Order Date :- 30.11.2023 Krishna* High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad