Allowed

Smt. Ramkali and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2023ABAIL/1961/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two female applicants sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in a gang rape case. The single judge held they were fit for bail pending police report due to gender considerations and lack of credible evidence, imposing standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties and specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1961 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Ramkali And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Mayank Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

These applications have been moved on behalf of the applicants Smt. Ramkali and Smt. Rekha seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 285 of 2022, under Sections 352, 354-kha, 452, 376-D, 120-B, 379, 506 IPC, P.S. Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. It is further submitted that the present is the case of counter blast of the F.I.R. in Case Crime No. 133 of 2021 lodged by the applicant no.1 against the brother, mother and sister of the prosecutrix of the present case. The said F.I.R. was lodged about one year before the present F.I.R. and subsequently in a false case the applicants have been implicated. It is next contended that in the F.I.R. there is no single averment regarding the involvement of the present applicants in the alleged crime. Thereafter, in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, the prosecutrix has falsely named the present applicants and alleged that they were cooperating the main accused persons when sexual offence was being committed against her. Present applicants are ladies and they have no role at all in the alleged crime. It has been submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶9

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶11

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that though it is a case of gang rape against the victim yet the present applicants are ladies, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court.

¶12

The application is allowed .

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶15

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 or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the

¶18

commission of which they are suspected.

¶19

The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of applicants in accordance with law.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.4.2023

¶22

safi

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Ramkali and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ramkali 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Asif Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijpal Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Smt Santosh Alias Santaresh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mannu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and Another