Disposed

Vimala Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2022ABAIL/2767/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of an anticipatory bail application filed by an accused in a family dispute case involving grievous injuries. Noting the applicant failed to comply with a previous order directing appearance in trial court, the court refused to grant anticipatory bail and directed compliance with the earlier order.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed without granting anticipatory bail; applicant directed to appear before the trial court in compliance with coordinate bench order dated 7.12.2021.

Vimala Devi Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2767 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vimala Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Prabha Shanker Pandey

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhaiya Lal Yadav

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Prabha Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Bhaiya Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the informant/ complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant - Vimla Devi in Case Crime No. 1136 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 325, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Nawabganj, District Prayagraj, with the prayer to grant her anticipatory bail as she is apprehending arrest in the abovementioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. The dispute is amongst the family members as the informant and accused persons are related to each other. There is cross version of the incident wherein Ram Kailash of the applicant's party was injured and an FIR under Section 323 IPC was lodged, however, on a fracture being found on the person of the injured Ram Kailash, the case was converted under Section 325 of the IPC.

¶10

It is also submitted that three persons, namely, Urmila Devi, Pankaj Kumar and Pawan Kumar from the side of the informant is said to have sustained injuries. The use of ' lathidanda' has been alleged in the first information report as well as in the statements of the witnesses including the injured witnesses. The charge sheet in this case has also been filed without making arrest of the applicant. The applicant had earlier approached this Court by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 25474 of 2021 and vide order dated 7.12.2021 passed therein they were directed to appear before the trial court and to file an appropriate application for bail with a further direction that if such an application is filed the same will have to be disposed of in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central

¶11

Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021)10 SC C 773. It is also submitted that the applicant is having apprehension that when she will appear before the trial court for obtaining regular bail, disposal of her bail application may take some time and she may be detained in prison, thus, protection form arrest be granted to her. She undertakes that she will cooperate in the speedy disposal of the case.

¶12

Learned counsel for the informant/ complainant however, submits that it is a case where specific role of assault has been attributed to all the named accused persons including the instant applicant. Three persons from the side of the informant, namely, Urmila Devi, Pankaj Kumar and Pawan Kumar have sustained injuries. Out of these three, two persons, namely, Urmila Devi and Pawan Kumar have sustained fracture on their head, fibula bone and the bone of forearm and having regard the heinousness with which the assault has been made, the applicant is not entitled for any protection.

¶13

Learned AGA has also supported the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant on the ground that already concession has been granted to the applicant to appear before the trial court keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) , however, the applicant instead of complying the order of a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 25474 of 2021 has come out before this Court again with the relief of anticipatory bail, which appears to be nonmaintainable.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is manifestly clear that the allegation of assault with lathi-danda has been attributed in the first information report to all the accused persons including the instant applicant. Two persons form the side of informant have received grievous injuries. The offences under which the charge sheet has been filed appear to be punishable up to 7 years of imprisonment.

¶15

It is also evident that applicant had earlier approached this Court by filing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 25472 of 2021 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed her to appear before the trial court and to avail the benefit of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra). Instead of appearing before the trial court the applicant has chosen to knock the door of this Court again without there being any cogent reason for the same.

¶16

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has

¶17

chalked out a scheme whereby a complete mechanism has been provided for disposal of the bail applications of those accused persons who have not been arrested by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation and have cooperated with the investigation. Special provisions have been made with regard to those accused persons against whom allegation of committing offences punishable upto 7 years imprisonment have been levelled. Apparently there appears no reason as to why the applicant has not complied the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court whereby she was directed to appear before the trial court to take the benefit of the law laid down in Satender Kuamr Antil (supra) .

¶18

Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view of the fact that a Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed the applicant to appear before the trial court and to move an application for bail under the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) , I do not find any reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant. Thus anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant is disposed of with a direction that that the applicant, who is a lady may appear before the trial court in compliance of the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 7.12.2021 passed in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 25474 of 2021.

¶19

Order Date :- 19.4.2022 Muk

¶20

Digitally signed by MOHD UMAR KHAN Date: 2022.04.20 14:05:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vimala Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimala Devi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yusuf @ Kalia @ Yunus Vs State of U.P.

Deepika Shukla @ Nitil Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Pathak Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narayani Singh and 7 Others Vs State of U.P.

Parveen Begam and Another Vs State of U.P.