Allowed

Ruby Sharma v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2023ABAIL/13537/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the court released the applicant pending the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., imposing standard conditions regarding availability, inducement, and travel.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted pending submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on a personal bond with two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13537 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ruby Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release her on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0673 of 2022, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Banndevi, District Aligarh.

¶7

As per allegations in the FIR, the deceased Babu S/o Anwar, who used to sell apple, had an altercation with the present applicant over non-payment of price of 2 kgs of apple bought by her; it is alleged in the FIR that when the deceased asked for his money, the applicant threatened him to entangle him in a false case of molestation; it is further alleged in the FIR that due to pandemonium created at the place, number of locals aggregated there and the matter was settled for Rs. 2,000/- as price for the apples and mending of the mobile; this incident happened on 09.08.2022 and on 02.09.2022 the deceased committed suicide by taking poison.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that she is absolutely innocent and a false FIR has been registered against her for ulterior motive; the episode of buying of apples or damage the mobile or settling the matter for Rs. 2,000/- has nothing to do with the death of the deceased and that she is being unnecessarily harassed by the complainant's side.

¶9

The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned AGA for the State. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in this case after postmortem, viscera has been preserved and till now no evidence as to death by poison has been come in picture.

¶10

In case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of

¶11

Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by the Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶12

In the instant case, I considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case. In my view, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

Let the applicant, Ruby Sharma involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions as below:-

¶14

(i) that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(ii) that 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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶21

10. It is made clear that observations made herein shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.2.2023 #Vikram/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ruby Sharma v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruby Sharma 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

Jamaluddin Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Indraprabha Chaudhary and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudhir Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijendra Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Nadeem Vs State of U.P. and Another