Allowed

Garima v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2022ABAIL/6631/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Garima in a PC case involving domestic violence and alleged strangulation. Considering the nature of accusation and absence of credible evidence against her, the Court held that a case for bail was made out.

What did the court decide?

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

Garima Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6631 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Garima Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma,Vimlendu Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for first informant, 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.288 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 506, 307 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Bannadevi, District Aligarh 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. The applicant is married sister-inlaw (Nanad) of complainant and that she along with her family members was residing in Koshi, Mathura. The allegations made against applicant, are thoroughly false. Learned counsel submitted that applicant was not going to be benefitted by fulfillment of any dowry demand. The marriage of complainant with brother of applicant has taken place about 12 years, prior to the incident. It was also stated that later on, the informant has committed suicide and that applicant has already been granted regular bail in that case. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that no case is made out against applicant. It has further been submitted that applicant is a lady and she has no

¶8

criminal history. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and she would appear as and when required by the 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. and learned counsel for informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that there is specific allegation against applicant and that applicant and coaccused persons have tried to strangulate the complainant. Learned counsel submitted that earlier, applicant has filed an application for anticipatory bail before the concerned Session Court but that application was dismissed as withdrawn and thus, this application is not maintainable.

¶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- Garima involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 herself available for interrogation by a police officer 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 :- 15.11.2022 Neeraj

¶19

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.16 15:59:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Garima v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Garima v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Mohammad Khalid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mudit Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raman Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt. Shanti Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjun Vs State of U.P.