Jarisa v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13489 of 2023 Applicant :- Jarisa Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Avesh Pratap Singh,Amit Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Garun Pal Singh, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Avesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶3The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case No. 283 of 2021, Case Crime No. 08 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 326A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Nakhasa, District Sambhal, with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

¶4As per prosecution story, the applicant, on 9.1.2018 at about

9.00 am, who happens to be the mother-in-law of the daughter of the informant, alongwith other co-accused persons, are stated to have forcibly put the face of the daughter in the fire lit for cooking, when she was busy cooking food.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant, being the lady, is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and she 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 is delayed and later on, the allegations have been changed to having administered some noxious material forcibly to her. The injury report does not match the FIR. It is next stated that the said co-accused persons namely, Sharafat, who is the husband of the victim, and Shahid, who is the husband of the applicant, have been enlarged on regular bail by the Sessions Judge, Sambhal, vide order dated 11.1.2019. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant was enlarged on interim bail but owing to certain circumstances, she could not attend the Court, as such, non-bailable warrants have been issued against her.

¶6Several 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.

¶7On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for 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 be adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

¶10In the event of arrest of the applicant, Jarisa 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 :- 14.12.2023 Shalini High Court of Judicature at Allahabad