Allowed

Smt. Premwati and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2022ABAIL/5604/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a criminal case involving assault and alleged obscenity. After hearing parties and perusing the record, the court held that a case for bail was made out and granted the application.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each, subject to conditions of cooperation and non-interference.

Smt. Premwati and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5604 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Premwati And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today, is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.06/2022, under Sections 147/148/149/452/323/354 IPC, Police Station Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahr with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. According to prosecution version, applicants and co-accused persons, on the dispute over drainage, trespassed into the house of complainant and assaulted the complainant and his family members and did obscene acts with the daughter-in-law of complainant. Learned counsel submitted that allegations of alleged rape have been found false during investigation and thus, section 376/511 IPC has already been deleted. It was submitted that in fact regarding the dispute of drainage, a first information report was lodged by the applicants side against family members of complainant on 18.12.2021 for offences under Section 354-Dha, 504, 506 IPC,

¶9

section 3 (ii)(v) S.C.S.T. Act and section 7/8 POCSO Act and thereafter, the first information report of this case has been got lodged on 04.01.2022 as a counter blast of the same. The injured persons have not sustained any serious injuries. The applicants have no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicants so far. Learned counsel has submitted that similarly placed co-accused Lakhmi Singh has already been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court, the copy of which, is available on record. It was also submitted that applicants undertake to cooperate during investigation and trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during trial and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. However, it could not be disputed that similarly placed coaccused Lakhmi Singh has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶11

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.

¶12

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 applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without

¶13

expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶14

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicants- Smt. Premwati, Dharm Singh and Jitendra @ Jitte in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/court below concerned with the following conditions :-

¶16

(i) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

¶17

(ii) the applicants 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶18

(iii) the applicants would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶19

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶20

Order Date :- 2.8.2022 Neeraj

¶21

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.08.04 09:55:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Premwati and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Premwati and 3 Others 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

Sandeep Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhagwan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Meenu Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dheeraj and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Ataullah and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Vs State of U.P and 3 Others