Allowed

Smt. Durgawati Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2020ABAIL/433/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court allowed bail to the applicant who is a liquor licensee facing charges of cheating, forgery, and illicit liquor procurement. The court observed no criminal antecedents and directed police to conclude investigation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail for two months or until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., on bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties.

Smt. Durgawati Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 433 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Durgawati Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Adya Prasad Tewari,Sheo Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms.Archana Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant, who is a lady is a licensee of foreign liquour and her license was suspended, because of the F.I.R. was lodged against her. He submits that thereafter the matter was compounded and applicant's license was restored, but the Investigating Officer proceeding with the investigation and is not abiding by the compounding done by the Excise Department. He further submits that applicant challenged the F.I.R. by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.34176 of 2018, in which earlier the arrest of applicant was stayed by Division of this Court vide order dated 28.11.2018, copy filed at annexre No.6 and later the said writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 3.12.2019 with a liberty to file anticipatory bail application. He submits that since there is no F.S.L. report to show that the alleged liquor was spurious or adulterated then there is no need of investigation of the case any further and thus continuance of investigation is not sustainable. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the fact that she has no criminal antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶9

In the event of arrest of the applicant Smt. Durgawati Yadav , involved in Case Crime No.344 of 2016 under sections 60, 64(A), 72 U.P. Excise Act, Sections 272, 467, 468 IPC, P.S. Belipar, District Gorakhpur, she shall be released on anticipatory bail for a period of two months or till the submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier before the competent Court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶10

(i) the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶11

(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 or to any police officer;

¶12

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. /Competent Court concerned.

¶13

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶14

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶15

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P/S.P./Competent Court concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶16

It is made clear that the Director, F.S.L. Lucknow shall ensure that the report of the consignment in question which was seized be made available to the Investigating Officer within two months, as has been directed above.

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶18

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶19

Order Date :- 23.9.2020 Tamang

Smt. Durgawati Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Durgawati Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Singh Patel Vs State of U.P.

Devendra Kumar Dubey and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satendra Singh @ Satendra @ Satto Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Shanaz Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Yadav and Anr. Vs State of U.P.