Allowed

Asha Devi and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2023ABAIL/12962/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to the applicants in a criminal case involving alleged illegal cultivation and offenses under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506, 186, 332, and 353. The court relies on Sushila Aggarwal guidelines while imposing various conditions including furnishing a bond and surrendering passport.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each, subject to various conditions.

Asha Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12962 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Asha Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yaduvanshi Birendra Mohan,Deo Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.105 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506, 186, 332, 353 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S.Naugarh, District- Chandauli.

¶7

As per allegation, the applicants and other co-accused persons were illegally cultivating the land of Irrigation Department.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are lady and they have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He submitted that the present FIR was lodged by the police against seven persons including the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the land in dispute did not relate to Irrigation Department and patta of the land in dispute is in favour of the applicants since 1964 and the allegation of cultivating the land of Irrigation Department is false. There is general allegations levelled against all the accused persons, no specific role has been assigned to the applicants. As per the injury report, injuries are simple in nature. The applicants are having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 28 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that applicants have apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory

¶10

bail of the applicants. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶11

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they are 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 applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants- Asha Devi and Mantu alias Vandana , 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 applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶14

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

¶15

(3) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶16

(4) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants.

¶17

(5) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail, the

¶18

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

(6) The applicants 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 their 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 allowed.

¶22

Order Date :- 2.12.2023 Krishna*

¶23

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

Asha Devi and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha Devi and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roshan Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Uzer Ahmed Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sunil Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Moti Lal Shiv Hare Vs State of U.P.

Tanzeem Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gayas @ Gyasuddin Vs State of U.P.