Dismissed

Kailashi Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2021ABAIL/7465/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the grant of anticipatory bail, noting the applicant was involved in the offense. It held that arguments raised were appropriate for regular bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C., especially for a female accused, rather than interim relief under Section 438.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed without granting bail; applicant advised to seek regular bail.

Kailashi Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7465 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Kailashi Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in case crime no. 201 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station- Machhali Shahar, District Jaunpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no specific allegation against the applicant as well as no role has been assigned by any of the witness. The applicant is an old lady and suffering from illness. He added that both the parties lodged their cross cases against each other but due to injury offence u/s 308 IPC has been increased in the present FIR. The applicant has no criminal history except the present one.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, she is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶9

Considering the submissions and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, no doubt it is an admitted fact from the the perusal of the FIR that applicant was involved in the offence in the question. Therefore, the argument advanced here are argument to be advanced at the stage of regular bail and cannot form the basis of anticipatory bail. Obviously, the claim in the shape of counter claim against each other and considering the injury no worth ground exists for entertaining this application on ground of interim relief. Interim relief can be claimed only when the falsity of the accusation is exposed on the face of it in a particular facts and circumstances of the case, which is not so in this case.

¶10

The applicant is free to agitate her claim at the stage of regular bail before the appropriate court. Noticeable fact is that applicant is lady, therefore, therefore, she is entitled to get benefit of provision of Section 437 Cr.P.C. while considering regular bail prayer of the applicant.

¶11

In view of above, this anticipatory bail application is disposed off.

¶12

The observation so made in the body of this order shall not prejudice proceeding of the lower court while deciding the case on merit.

¶13

Order Date :- 16.8.2021

¶14

Raj

Kailashi Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailashi Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghanaram Pal @ Vindrawan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pragya Chaturvedi @ Pragya Suri and Another Vs State of U.P.

Shubham Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vineet Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another