Allowed

Smt. Savita Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2022ABAIL/15665/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the applicant against FIR involving illegal mining and related offences. The court noted the applicant's hospitalization and lack of presence at the alleged crime scene.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with furnishing of personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties, subject to various conditions including appearance in court and non-interference with evidence.

Smt. Savita Devi Vs State of Uttar… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 15665 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Savita Devi Opposite Party :- State Of Uttar Pradesh Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.173 of 2021, under Sections 379, 120(B) I.P.C. and Section 4, 21 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and Sections 3, 5 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station-Kabrai, District-Mahoba with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has an apprehension that she may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. According to prosecution version, on 06.06.2021 the Mines inspector and police have intercepted a truck no.UP-32GN1788, which was carrying mineral (soil) illegally without required documents. Learned counsel submitted that involvement of applicant has been shown merely on the basis that she is registered owner of the said truck. The applicant has not indulged in any illegal mining. There is no such evidence that applicant was present at the spot. It is further submitted that on the date of alleged incident, the applicant was lying admitted in the hospital. It was further submitted that applicant is a lady and she has no criminal antecedents. It was submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial

¶8

and she would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during trial and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶10

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Smt. Savita Devi in the aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court below concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution

¶16

witness.

¶17

The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶19

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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶21

Order Date :- 11.11.2022 Neeraj

¶22

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.11 17:11:44 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Savita Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savita Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh

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

Naseem Vs State of U.P.

Manjesh Vs State of U.P.

Shravan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sachin Vs State of Up Though Principal Secretary U.P.

Smt. Kusma Vs State of U.P.

Pintu Vs State of U.P And 3 Others