Allowed

Sunita Devi v. State of U.P

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2021ABAIL/12974/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-bench judgment allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant, having exhausted anticipatory bail before the Court of Session, satisfied the court through undertaking of cooperation and lack of antecedents. As the recorded reasons were sufficient, the application was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. subject to conditions including personal bond, surrender of passports, availability for interrogation, and prohibition of inducement or tampering wi

Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12974 of 2021 Applicant :- Sunita Devi and another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Khalid

¶3

Counsel for opposite party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

(1) Heard Mohammad Khalid, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶6

(2) The instant application is being moved by the applicants namely, Sunita Devi and Balveer invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending their arrest in connection with Case Crime no.80 of 2021, under Sections 323, 452, 354(kha), 504, 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Sahawar, DistrictKasganj.

¶7

(3) From the record it is evident that the applicants have approached this Court after getting their anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Session vide order dated 25.5.2021.

¶8

(4) 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.

¶9

(5) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have got no criminal antecedents and they have not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced by learned counsel for the applicants on behalf of the applicants that they would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigating agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee away from the course of justice.

¶10

(6) Learned counsel for the applicants has strenuously argued that the applicants have been made target just to besmirch their reputation and belittle him in the public estimate by the

¶11

informant. Number of arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicants by the informant. Learned counsel for the applicants has also relied upon the judgements in the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273; Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 and Sanaul Haque vs State of U.P. and another, 2008 Cri. LJ 1998 , to buttress his contentions.

¶12

(7) In the case of Arnesh Kumar ( supra ) Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that the pith and core is that the police officer before arrest must put questions to himself, Why arrest?, Is it really required?, What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? If it is only after these questions are addressed and one or other conditions, as enumerated above, are satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. Before the arrest the police office should have a reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to satisfy further that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged in sub-clauses (a) to (e) to Clause-1 of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶13

(8) In this backdrop of legal proposition, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case with malice intention. Present F.I.R. was got registered by Smt. Urmila on 23.2.2021 for the alleged incident dated 7.2.2021 against the applicants. The applicant no.2 is the husband of applicant no.1 and both these persons are named in the F.I.R. Contention of the counsel for the applicants is that the informant has given her landed property on the lease ( batai ) to the applicants and with regard to same there was deep rooted misunderstanding between them. On this score, the informant has levelled wild allegation of assaulting by kicks, fists and disrobing her.

¶14

(9) Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicants have got no criminal antecedents but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicants to arrest them. The alleged apprehension on behalf of applicants is imaginary and unfounded one. Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the applicants are not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.

¶15

(10) After considering the record of the case as available before the Court, in the light of rival submissions made at the Bar and keeping in view the nature and gravity of the accusation,

¶16

antecedents of the applicants, their undertaking to make themselves available to the authorities whenever required, the Court feels satisfied that it would be expedient to grant an order of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicants. Thus instant Anticipatory Bail stands ALLOWED.

¶17

(11) Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the investigation and subsequent stage of the case, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicants in aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer till submission of report u/s 173(2) CrPC, with the conditions that :

¶18

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for the interrogation by the police as and when required. The Investigating Officer of the case would give 48 hours prior notice or telephonically inform the concerned accusedapplicant to remain available to him for the purposes of interrogation and the accused-applicants are obliged to abide by such directions.

¶19

(ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threats or comments to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the correct facts to the court or to the police officer.

¶20

(iii) The Investigating Officer of the case would make all necessary endeavour to gear up the investigation in utmost transparent and professional way and would try to conclude the same within a maximum period of 90 days. During this period the accused-applicants would not leave the State of Uttar Pradesh without informing the Investigating Officer of the case and sharing his contact number.

¶21

(iv) In the event the applicants are having their passports, they will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District till the submission of report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶22

(12) In the event, the applicants breach or attempt to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or wilfully violate above conditions or abstains themselves from the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the court of Session for cancellation of bail and the Court of Session has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.

¶23

Order Date :- 22.7.2021 M. Kumar

¶24

Digitally signed by Justice Rahul Chaturvedi Date: 2021.07.24 17:06:17 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunita Devi v. State of U.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Devi 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

Purushottam and Another Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Prajapti and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Shakeel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Hadeesh @ Mohd Hadish Vs State of U.P.

Vipul Sharma @ Pipal Vs State of U.P.

Natthuram Prajapati Vs State of U.P. AND2 Others