Allowed

Madhu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2022ABAIL/6557/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application lodged by Madhu under Section 438 Cr.P.C. She was accused of involvement in an assault case with nine co-accused. The court found no material to oppose bail and imposed conditions on release.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail is allowed upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each and complying with standard conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6557 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Madhu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Krishna S Chandel,Vivek Singh Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 31 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 354, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Sakeet, District Etah, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has an apprehension that she may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. The first information report was lodged against applicant and ten coaccused persons alleging that on 18.03.2022 at 4:00 PM they trespassed into house of complainant and assaulted the complainant and other family members. Learned counsel submitted that all the three injured persons have sustained simple injuries. Referring to their x-ray reports, it was submitted that no abnormality has been found in x-ray reports of the injured persons. The applicant is a young lady student and she has been falsely implicated merely because she is related to co-accused persons. No specific role has been

¶8

assigned to applicant. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and she would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶10

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.

¶11

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 applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Madhu in the aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her 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 :-

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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 applicant.

¶18

Order Date :- 30.8.2022 A. Tripathi

¶19

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.08.30 17:47:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Madhu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramvilas Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Vs State of U.P

Tabassum (Smt.) and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Javed Khan Vs State of U.P.

Uma Shanker Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Alok Parihar Vs State of U.P. and Another