Allowed

Neelam Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2023/94/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to Neelam Yadav regarding an IPC 306 case. Relying on Sushila Aggarwal, the judge extended protection till the conclusion of the trial, noting her cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties for duration till conclusion of trial.

Neelam Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 94 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Neelam Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Pandey,Ravi Kant Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶6

By means of present anticipatory bail application, the applicant has shown his apprehension of arrest in Case Crime No. 523 of 2021 u/s 306 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶7

Attention has been drawn towards Annexure no. 1 which is anticipatory bail order dated 22.9.2022 till completion of the investigation and filing of the police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. The order dated 22.9.2022 reads as under :

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Sri Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant/ opposite party no.2.

¶9

This Court has passed the order dated 24.02.2022 granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant, which reads as under:-

¶10

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

¶11

Steps within a week.

¶12

Office to proceed accordingly.

¶13

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R. No. 523 of 2021 u/s 306 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as she has not committed any offence as alleged.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that initially the F.I.R. was lodged u/s 302 IPC but during investigation it was converted u/s 306 IPC. It has been further submitted that the present applicant and the deceased were running one cloth shop and the deceased infatuated with the present applicant, however, she was a married lady having two minor children. In para 28 of the application it has been categorically indicated that the applicant has two minor children and except the applicant none is there in the family to look after the children inasmuch as the husband of the applicant has deserted her. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that since the marriage of the deceased was settled by his family members and feeling distressed out of such thing he committed suicide. However, in such act there was no

¶15

involvement of the present applicant.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he will cooperate in the trial failing which the State can move appropriate application for vacation of the interim protection.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and prayed for some time to file counter affidavit.

¶18

On due consideration to the arguments advance by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., so also considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant, as an interim measure, is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98". 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.

¶19

In the event of arrest, the accused-applicant Neelam Yadav, shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25000/- each and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

¶21

(ii) the applicant shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.

¶22

Learned A.G.A. is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit.

¶23

List on 30.3.2022."

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant is cooperating with the investigation and has not misused liberty of the bail so granted by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2022 (supra). Till date, no charge sheet has been filed and the present applicant undertakes that she shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, therefore, aforesaid order may be extended further. He has further submitted that in compliance of the order of this Court, the applicant has submitted bonds.

¶25

Learned AGA has submitted that he has filed counter affidavit, however, no rejoinder affidavit has been filed.

¶26

Since the present applicant is a lady and she is cooperating with the investigation in terms of order dated 24.02.2022 (supra) and has not misused the liberty of bail, therefore, I find it appropriate that liberty of the present applicant may be protected till completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet, if any, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98 .

¶27

The instant anticipatory bail application is disposed of accordingly." Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that she has cooperated in the investigation and has not misused the

¶28

liberty of anticipatory bail, now the charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, her liberty may be protected till conclusion of the trial. He has also drawn attention of this Court towards the material to convince the Court that primafacie the offence u/s 306 IPC is not made out against her. Learned counsel has further submitted that the applicant is ready to participate in the trial proceedings, therefore, her liberty may be protected.

¶29

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed this anticipatory bail application and has submitted that since the liberty of the present applicant was earlier protected till completion of investigation and filing of police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C., therefore, when the charge-sheet has been filed she has got only two options, first, she may assail the said charge-sheet before the competent court of law if she is aggrieved from the charge-sheet and secondly, she may file her regular bail application.

¶30

Without entering into the merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and material available on record, the statement of the learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant has cooperated in the investigation and has not misused the liberty of anticipatory bail, charge-sheet has been filed and her undertaking that she shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, if granted and also the dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed / held that liberty of an accused person may be protected till completion of the investigation or till conclusion of trial proceedings as per satisfaction of the court and in the present case I am satisfied that the liberty of the present applicant may be protected till conclusion of the trial, anticipatory bail application is granted.

¶31

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, the present anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶32

Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶33

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

¶34

that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make

¶35

any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶36

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

¶37

that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶43

Order Date :- 16.1.2023 Om

¶44

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Neelam Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. 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

Rita Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Dharam Raj Paswan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko.

Arvind Kejriwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl.Chief Secy. Home and Another

Brijeash Saurabh Mishra @ Brijesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Jagat Bahadur Pal Alias Bulle Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. C.B.I.