Allowed

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

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2022ABAIL/2239/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application by a female applicant apprehending arrest in a case involving POCSO and IPC Section 376. The Single Judge allowed the application on the ground that the applicant cooperated with investigation and was not arrested despite the charge-sheet. Conditioned release on a bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties and compliance with specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2239 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Ranjana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Purushottam Dixit,Jitendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri P. Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶6

By means of present anticipatory bail application, the applicant has shown his apprehension of arrest in Case Crime No. 546 of 2021 u/s 376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶7

At the very outset learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant is not named in the F.I.R. However, after being implicated in the case and a notice u/s 41A being served she cooperated with the investigation, therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that if the applicant who is a lady has cooperated with the investigation then her arrest is not warranted even after filing of charge-sheet in view of the settled propositions of Apex Court. He has further submitted that if the liberty of the present applicant is protected, she shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the order being passed by this Court, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid prayer of learned counsel for the applicant but could not dispute the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail for the reason that the applicant who is a lady has cooperated with the investigation and till filing of charge-sheet she has not been arrested. Further, the law is trite that if any accused person is cooperating with the investigation and charge-sheet is filed, the arrest of such person is not mandatory unless compelling circumstances or reasons are there with the prosecution or the Court. In the present case the offence under which the charge-sheet has been filed is having punishment below seven years.

¶10

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed . Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant- Smt. Ranjana shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

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

¶12

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;

¶13

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

¶14

that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

¶15

that in case charge-sheet is submitted 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

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

¶19

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶20

Order Date :- 5.7.2022 Om.

¶21

Digitally signed by OM PRAKASH MISHRA Date: 2022.07.05 18:24:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ranjana 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tejveer @ Bhura and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Patel@Chaudhary Patel@Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vishva Deep Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

V.D. Agarwal Vs State of U.P.

Sukhpal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Maulana Ahmad @ Mohammad Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another