Allowed

Anamika Ganguli Rastogi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 May 2022ABAIL/1051/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving Sections of the IPC and the SC/ST Act, where the initial application had been rejected. The court held that the conditions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. were satisfied and the applicant was enlarged on bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties of like amount with conditions regarding testimony and non-interference.

Anamika Ganguli Rastogi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1051 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Anamika Ganguli Rastogi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akanksha Yadav,Hemant Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Shri U.K. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vishwa Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

None appears on behalf of first informant even in revised call.

¶7

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Anamika Ganguli Rastogi in Case Crime No. 179 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 3(1) Da, Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station - George Town, District Prayagraj, after rejecting anticipatory bail application of the applicant by Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, No. 3, vide order dated 21.1.2022.

¶8

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the FIR of the case has been lodged against six named persons including the applicant and one nine years old of Class-V student, stating most of allegations against co-accused Mohd. Haider, who is an school employee of Sushil Rastogi Memorial School, Phaphamau, Prayagraj. It is further submitted that the applicant is C.E.O. (Manager) of the said school and co-accused Dr. Sobhit Rastogi is the husband of the present applicant and Director of the said school. It is further submitted that it has been alleged against the applicant in the lengthy First Information Report that on mobile phone, the present applicant abused the first informant and used derogatory caste related words. It is further submitted that the said derogatory caste related word has not been spoken on the public place or place of public view.

¶9

It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel that it is well settled by Supreme Court that where the allegations of the SC/ST Act is not made out, the anticipatory bail under Section

¶10

18 is not completely barred the scope of Section 438 Cr.P.C. He has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Prithvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India; (2020) 4 SCC 727 . He further submits that apart from the aforesaid allegations, there is no other allegation against the applicant. It has been further submitted that other co-accused Mohd. Haider was granted regular bail by the Court below. It is further submitted that co-accused Dr. Sobhit Rastogi was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 23.2.2022 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 932 of 2022.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶12

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 Vs. 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.

¶13

It is settled position of law that the anticipatory bail being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely roped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98 , ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

¶15

In case of arrest, the applicant, Anamika Ganguli Rastogi is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in above case crime number till the conclusion of trial, on her furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties each of like amount before the Station House Officer of Police Station/Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required, if investigation is in progress;

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any

¶18

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned/Court concerned;

¶20

(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked;

¶21

(v) 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;

¶22

The Investigating Officer will continue with the investigation, if it is in progress and will not be affected by this order.

¶23

A copy of this order shall also be produced before the S.P/S.S.P concerned by the applicant, within a week, if the investigation is still in progress, who shall ensure compliance of this order.

¶24

With the aforesaid directions, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed .

¶25

Order Date :- 9.5.2022 CS/-

¶26

Digitally signed by CHANDAN SINGH Date: 2022.05.10 12:36:16 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anamika Ganguli Rastogi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anamika Ganguli Rastogi 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

Braham Jeet Vs State of U.P.

Udham Singh Saini and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Saleeman and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tekai Singh @ Bhuependra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ashwani Kumar Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and 3 Others

Smt Rajansri Vs State of U.P.