Allowed

Kamini Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2022ABAIL/18769/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed Kamini Chaudhary's application for anticipatory bail in a case involving Sections 498A, 304-B IPC, and D.P. Act. The court granted bail subject to standard conditions including summons attendance and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The accused Kamini Chaudhary to be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount.

Kamini Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 18769 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Kamini Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyam Narayan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Satyam Narayan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.K. Srivastava, 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 Crime No.487 of 2021, registered under Sections 498A, 323 and 304-B IPC & Section 3/4 D.P. Act at Police Station- Pilakuwa, District Hapur with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

¶7

Admittedly, the applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated 7.12.2021 till the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by this Court.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the order dated 7.12.2021 categorically indicates that the proceedings under Sections 498A, 323, 304-B IPC have been dropped and the matter has been converted to Section 306 IPC, although it is an admitted fact that the charge-sheet has been filed. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant is a lady who happens to be the neighbour of the deceased and the co-accused persons and has nothing to do with the said offence. The allegations levelled against the applicant are general in nature and are frivolous. The applicant has not misused the opportunity granted to her. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that she has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶11

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Kamini Chaudhary be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶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 her 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 the previous permission of the court;

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶18

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.

¶19

Order Date :- 1.11.2022 Ravi Kant

¶20

Digitally signed by RAVI KANT Date: 2022.11.01 16:10:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kamini Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamini Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

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

Sushil @ Ramu Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Krishna Tiwari @ Ashutosh Tiwari Vs State of U.P and Another

Monish Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harendra @ Harvindra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Nekhram Vs State of U.P.

Movajjam Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another