Smt Babita Devi v. State of U.P

Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6268 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt Babita Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bratendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed by the counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

¶2Heard counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶3This application under Section 482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 350 of 2024, under Sections 308, 325, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kishani, District Mainpuri.

¶4Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, the applicant along with two named accused is alleged to have assaulted Ramesh Chandra and Guddi Devi. As per the medical report of injured Ramesh Chandra, he received three injuries. The injuries no. 2 and 3 were simple in nature, whereas the injury no.1 was referred for x-ray examination. As per the x-ray report, 'fracture of right lateral parietal bone was seen'. Injured Guddi Devi received two injuries. The injury no. 2 was simple in nature, whereas injury no.1 was referred for x-ray examination. As per the supplementary medical report 'fracture of lower end ulna bone was seen'. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender, who caused injury no.1 to the injured Ramesh Chandra. It is next contended that at the time of alleged incident, the applicant was in an advanced stage of her pregnancy. She had delivered a baby on 23.08.2024. Investigation has been completed. Charge sheet has been submitted. The applicant had co-operated in the investigation. The applicant has been summoned by the concerned court. No custodial interrogation is required. Counsel for applicant further contends that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is upto seven years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant has apprehension of her arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.

¶5Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶6The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. One of the categories being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinarily the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶7It is further to be noted that as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years.

¶8It is not the case of the opposite party that applicant was arrested for the alleged offences during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party that the applicant had not co-operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicant and the applicant has been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offence in which punishment provided is upto seven years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the liberty of the individual is required to be protected.

¶9It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶10It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶11Having regard to the submissions made, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant, in particular the fact that as per the medical report of injured Ramesh Chandra, he received three injuries; the injuries no. 2 and 3 were simple in nature, whereas the injury no.1 was referred for x-ray examination; as per the x-ray report, 'fracture of right lateral parietal bone was seen'; injured Guddi Devi received two injuries; the injury no. 2 was simple in nature, whereas injury no.1 was referred for x-ray examination; as per the supplementary medical report 'fracture of lower end ulna bone was seen'; a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant; the applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender, who caused injury no.1 to the injured Ramesh Chandra; investigation has been completed, charge sheet has been submitted, the applicant had co-operated in the investigation, no custodial interrogation is required, and the fact that the offences against the applicant are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶12In the event of arrest, the applicant Smt. Babita Devi, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) the applicant shall make herself available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court;

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport the same shall be deposited by her before the concerned court.

¶13In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶14The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Lbm/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad