Mamta Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13477 of 2023 Applicant :- Mamta Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Mamta Devi seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 330 of 2022 under Sections 308, 325, 352, 427, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Lalpur-Pandeypur, District-Varanasi.

¶3Due to some property dispute the named accused persons came to the house of the applicant and made assault upon him with intention to kill and he was assaulted with the aid of iron rod and was also pushed from the roof to the ground by the present applicant. The injured sustained grevious injuries and was medically examined. FIR was lodged and now the charge sheet has been submitted.

¶4It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned. It is further submitted that two co-accused persons of this case have been granted regular bail from this Court. The applicant is a lady, she has been cooperative with the investigation throughout. No role of assault has been assigned to her in the FIR. It is also submitted that the injuries caused to the injured person are not serious or grevious. No weapon has been assigned to the present applicant. It is further submitted that the injury has been caused one day before at some other place. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is vehemently submitted that the injured /informant of this case has sustained very grevious injuries. The doctor in his statement has also clearly stated that the injured was unconscious and a fracture in the spinal cord has been discovered in the x-ray of the injured, which is a serious injury. The informant/ injured in his statement corroborated the FIR version and from the evidence collected during the investigation ample material has been found against the present applicant and she had actively participated in the commission of the crime. It is further submitted that so far as the date and time of injury is concerned these points relate to the merits of the case and cannot be determined at this stage.

¶6In this matter, it reveals that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has also been taken by the Court concerned. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶7It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶8It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶9In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I deem it not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Prayer made in the application is refused.

¶10The anticipatory bail application is rejected.

¶11In the last, learned counsel for the applicant has urged that direction be given to the learned Court concerned to consider and decide the bail application of the applicant in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.

¶12Hence, it is observed that the bail application of the applicant, if moved, shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil case (supra).

¶13It is further directed that the Court concerned while considering the bail application of the applicant in the light of Satender Kumar Antil case (supra), shall pass an order strictly in compliance of the directions given in the aforesaid judgement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in letter and spirit, particularly complying with the order dated 21.3.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter. Order Date :- 13.12.2023 Fhd High Court of Judicature at Allahabad