Allowed

Shuklawati Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2022ABAIL/5397/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to an applicant in a suicide murder case under Section 306 IPC. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond with sureties and adhere to specific conditions, referencing Supreme Court precedents on bail freedoms and arrest restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to personal bond with two sureties and four specific conditions including passport surrender and court presence.

Shuklawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5397 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shuklawati Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar,Jeet Bahadur Gautam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Shuklawati Devi, in Case Crime No. 65 of 2022 under Section306 IPC, Police Station- Cholapur, District Varanasi.

¶7

The applicant is mother in law of the deceased. Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that quarrel took place between the husbandand wife. In the heat of passion, the deceased committed suicide herself by consuming poison. As per postmortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore, the Viscera was preserved and the Viscera report is still awaited. It is further submitted that the in such nature of cases, husband is the main accused as the legal and moral responsibility for the safety and security of the wife lies on him. The applicant has no adverse criminal history. There is apprehension of the applicant to arrest. If the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she will never misuse the same.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, she is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶9

After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that there is a case registered/about to be registered against the applicant. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend him. After the lodging of F.I.R, the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an F.I.R has been lodged. The courts have repeatedly held that arrest should be

¶10

the last option for the police and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is required. Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349 , the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60 percent of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2 percent of expenditure of the jails. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the arrest of an accused should be made.

¶11

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, she is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant (Shuklawati Devi) involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶14

The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶15

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;

¶16

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse

¶17

of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶19

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

Order Date :- 28.11.2022 Virendra

¶21

Digitally signed by VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Date: 2022.11.29 09:51:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shuklawati Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shuklawati Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Jagdish and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vipin Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Kunwarpal Singh Vs State of U.P and Another

Rajkaran Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Budhauliya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others