Allowed

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

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2023ABAIL/11894/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving property mutation and forgery allegations, relying on Sushila Aggarwal. The bail was released on conditions including cooperation with investigation, no tampering, and surrender of passport.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to specific conditions.

Amlawati @ Amrawati Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:213484

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11894 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Amlawati @ Amrawati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 382 of 2023, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, P.S. Bairiya, District Ballia, during the pendency of application.

¶8

In short, allegation against the applicant is that she along with other co accused persons are said to have got her name mutated on 30.09.2015 on the basis of forged paper of death certificate of brother of informant, namely, Rajendra, who is allegedly husband of the applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. has been lodged through application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 5.7.2023. It is further submitted that against the mutation order dated 30.09.2015 the informant has filed restoration application and the same has been dismissed and the appeal also stands dismissed. It is further submitted that the applicant has sold some part of her land to co accused Arvind Kumar Yadav on 8.7.2022 and thereafter a cancellation suit was filed by cousin brother of the informant who has no locus. It is further submitted that applicant is legally wedded wife of the Rajendra Singh, who was allegedly missing in 1985 and not returned till today and for the purpose of capturing of the property, the informant and his family members for the purpose of harassing and blackmailing the applicant lodged the present case. The applicant is having definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.

¶11

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he 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.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Amlawati @ Amrawati involved in the aforesaid 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:-

¶13

(1) 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;

¶14

(2) 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

¶15

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

¶16

(4) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶17

(5) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶18

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

¶19

(7) 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 his bail and proceed against his 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 disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 7.11.2023 RavindraKSingh

¶23

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amlawati @ Amrawati 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

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

Pushpa Devi @ Kunne Vs State of U.P.