Allowed

Smt. Shakuntala v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2022ABAIL/10438/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Apex Court Single Judge allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant in a non-bailable cognizable offence. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that since the applicant was not taken into custody during investigation, she was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to specified conditions of interrogation attendance, no interference with evidence, and appearing in court.

Smt. Shakuntala Vs State of U.P and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10438 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Shakuntala Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Ladli Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case No.2044 of 2020 (State Vs. Shakuntala and others), in connection with Case Crime No. 166 of 2019, under Sections 304, 325, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Dakor, District Jalaun, with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 26.2.2020 and he has not misused the liberty granted to her. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director AIR 2021 4154, wherein the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. Learned counsel has further stated that the two co-accused persons Akhilesh Kushwaha and Smt. Sona have already been enlarged on regular bail by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 30616 of 2021 and 14399 of 2021 vide orders dated 21.9.2021 & 7.10.2021 respectively and their orders have been annexed as Annexure-11 of the affidavit annexed with the application. The applicant has no criminal history. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, she will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶10

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶11

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Smt. Shakuntala involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶12

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

¶13

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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶14

that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶15

that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶16

that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶17

that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the

¶20

testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.11.2022 Siddhant

¶22

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SAHU Date: 2022.11.05 14:23:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Shakuntala v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shakuntala 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Farman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdish Prasad Gautam and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Naresh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yashpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P.