Allowed

Smt. Sunita Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2023/24/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow allowed an anticipatory bail application for a fair price shop owner accused under the Essential Commodities Act. The court noted her clean record and the grave nature of the allegations, granting bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

Smt. Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:72301

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 24 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Sunita Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Kanaujia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Kanaujia, the learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Parul Kant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 225 of 2017, under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on26.05.2017 against the applicant, who is a fair price shop owner, stating that some discrepancies were found at the time of inspection of the applicant's shop.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of the application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, she has been falsely implicated in the present case and she has no criminal history.

¶10

Some ration card holders have given statements in favour of the applicant stating that she distributes commodities regularly.

¶11

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant is a woman having no criminal history and offence alleged carry a maximum punishment of imprisonment up to seven years, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶13

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant- Smt. Sunita Devi be released on bail in

¶15

Case Crime No. 225 of 2017, under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶17

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶18

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶19

Order Date :- 2.11.2023 Pradeep/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Sunita Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunita Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kotedar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Avatar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Arvind Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kamal @ Lambu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Purnesh Kumar @ Anuj Vs State U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Lko. 3 Others

Raghuveer Prasad S/O Shri Putti Lal (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.