Allowed

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

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2022ABAIL/6635/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed anticipatory bail to the applicant, Madhuri, on the ground of parity with co-accused who were already granted bail, subject to conditions specified in accordance with Supreme Court judgment in Sushila Aggarwal case.

What did the court decide?

Released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties each in the like amount with specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6635 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Madhuri Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Bhan Singh,Ram Kailash Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Bahadur Verma

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Surya Bhan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Ladli Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.0316 of 2020 registered under Sections 452, 376-D and 506 IPC at Police Station- Thathiya, District Kannauj with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that co-accused persons, Ram Kanth and Amit @ Raju, have already been granted anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.7722 of 2022. Therefore, the present applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that she will cooperate in the trial failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶8

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by her.

¶9

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶10

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the

¶11

applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Madhuri be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶13

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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶14

that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶15

that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶16

that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶17

that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶18

that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.

¶20

Order Date :- 13.10.2022 Ravi Kant

¶21

Digitally signed by RAVI KANT Date: 2022.10.14 13:43:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhuri 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

Arshad Khan Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ragib Rana Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sunil Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hansnath Vs State of U.P.

Anuj Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another