Allowed

Smt Suresh Bala v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2020ABAIL/4845/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Smt Suresh Bala in a case involving IPC offences. The court noted no criminal antecedents and illegal police entry as key factors, directing release with strict conditions under the Sushila Aggarwal guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to eight specific conditions including surrendering passport and appearing in cou

Smt Suresh Bala Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4845 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt Suresh Bala Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Smt Suresh Bala, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No.260 of 2020, under Sections -147, 353, 186, 189 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station -Badalpur, District -Gautam Buddh Nagar , during pendency of trial.

¶7

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U. P. Amendment) is not required.

¶8

At present, there are no criminal antecedents of the applicant shown as also no real apprehension has been expressed by the State of the applicant fleeing from justice, if the present application is allowed.

¶9

While the bail application has been opposed by the State, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant who is a lady, has been unnecessarily falsely implicated. In any case, there is no offence disclosed in the FIR, inasmuch as, even if the FIR allegations are taken to be true, the police action of entering the residential house of the applicant and making search which continued till late night without any prior warrant or authorization, is wholly illegal and without any authority of law.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant, but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶11

Hence the applicant is 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 and order dated 22.05.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.2609 of 2020 . 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.

¶12

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and her antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶13

Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

The applicant shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶15

The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

¶16

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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶17

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant.

¶18

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the

¶19

case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶20

The applicant 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 her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶21

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 14.12.2020 Ruchi Agrahari

Smt Suresh Bala v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Suresh Bala 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

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ubaid and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Ramawadh Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Chakravarty Vs State of U.P.

Asif Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P.