Allowed

Pushpa Devi @ Kunne v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2023ABAIL/11879/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to Pushpa Devi in a case involving offences under the Indian Penal Code, directing the trial court to release her on personal and surety bonds with stringent conditions precedent to future arrest.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties with conditions including cooperation with investigation, presence in court for specific stages, and cooperation with trial.

Pushpa Devi @ Kunne Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:213491

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11879 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pushpa Devi @ Kunne Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar,Kalp Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Tiwari Abhishek Rajesh

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vivekanand, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Tiwari Abhishek Rajesh, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.120 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 34, 354-B, 307 I.P.C., P.S.- Rajpur, District- Kanpur Dehat.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He submitted that incident took place on 5.9.2022; medical was conducted after on month of the incident i.e. on 5.10.2022 and FIR was lodged on 21.10.2022 without explanation of delay. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 31 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. They have submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, she is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶10

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, she is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Pushpa Devi @ Kunne, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail on 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:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶13

(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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶16

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶17

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila

¶18

Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶19

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶20

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed.

¶22

Order Date :- 7.11.2023 Krishna*

¶23

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pushpa Devi @ Kunne v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Devi @ Kunne v. State of U.P.

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

Ram Gopal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Priyanka Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Wasi Rahman @ Mohd. Wasi Vs State of U.P.

Randheer Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar Jain and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amlawati @ Amrawati Vs State of U.P. and Another