Allowed

Smt. Meena v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2022ABAIL/7379/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to the applicant facing allegations of cheating and forgery. The court held that a case for bail is made out considering the nature of accusations and the applicant's lack of specific role or antecedents, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each.

Smt. Meena 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. - 7379 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Meena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

The affidavit of applicant, filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and 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. 159 of 2022, under Sections 147, 332, 353, 393, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Jamunapur, District Mathura, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. According to the prosecution version, on information regarding some quarrel between two neighbours, the police have reached at spot and it was alleged that the named accused persons have misbehaved with police and tried to snatch the service pistol of complainant. The applicant is not named in the first information report, which was lodged against co-accused Mukesh, Kalua, Tanu and 3-4 others. The applicant is a lady and she has been falsely implicated in this case merely because she is wife of co-accused

¶9

Kalua. No specific role has been 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 will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

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

¶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 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.

¶13

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Smt. Meena in the aforesaid case crime, she will 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

¶15

concerned with the following conditions :-

¶16

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

¶17

(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;

¶18

(iii) the applicant 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 applicant.

¶20

Order Date :- 2.9.2022 A. Tripathi

¶21

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.09.03 10:49:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Meena v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meena 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

Brajesh Kumar Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Akhilesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anotherr

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Neeraj Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Vs State of U.P. and Another