Allowed

Indu Devi v. State of Up through Principal Secretary Home,and another

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2022ABAIL/1054/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in an excise case. The court noted the applicant is a woman with no prior criminal record and ordered her release upon bail, directing the police to conclude the investigation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties, subject to four specific conditions; investigation to be concluded within three months.

Indu Devi Vs State of Up through Principal Secretary… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1054 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Indu Devi Opposite Party :- State Of Up Through Principal Secretary Home,And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Indu Devi , seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 223 of 2021, under Sections 272, 273 I.P.C. & 60 Excise Act, Police Station Maharajganj, District Azamgarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is a lady. It is alleged that at the time of raid, the applicant and her husband fled away from house after which the raiding team recovered 18 litres of illicit country-made liquor, urea, nausadar and alum (fitkari). It is argued that the other articles as recovered are common and general articles easily available in market. It is argued that the sample of recovered material has already been taken by the police but till date, there is no report of any expert regarding the alleged recovered material. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 16 of the affidavit.

¶8

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶9

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is a lady. She has no criminal antecedents.

¶10

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

¶11

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Indu Devi , involved in aforesaid case crime no. shall be released on anticipatory bail

¶12

till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;

¶14

(ii) 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 office;

¶15

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India 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.

¶16

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶17

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶18

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶19

The anticipatory bail application is disposed of.

¶20

Order Date :- 17.2.2022 AS Rathore/e-court

¶21

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR Date: 2022.02.17 17:24:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indu Devi v. State of Up through Principal Secretary Home,and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indu Devi v. State of Up through Principal Secretary Home,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

Meena Vs State of U.P.

Rashid Vs State of U.P.

Bobby Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Vs State of U.P.