Allowed

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

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2023ABAIL/3021/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to three applicants moving under Section 438 Cr.P.C. fearing arrest in a domestic offence case where they were already granted bail in initial FIR sections. The Court imposed conditions including a bond and appearance requirements.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties subject to conditions regarding appearance and non-interference.

Smt Santosh Alias Santaresh and 2 Others Vs State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3021 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Smt Santosh Alias Santaresh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved on behalf of the applicants - Smt. Santosh alias Santaresh, Radhika and Km. Tannu alias Sonam seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.152 of 2021 under sections 313 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Saharanpur.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It has been submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-applicants that earlier an FIR was lodged under sections 506, 504, 354, 323 IPC against all the accused persons and they were granted bail in the aforesaid offence. However, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and section 313 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act were added to the offence. It is further submitted that in the statement of the victim/informant recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. a specific role of kicking in the abdomen of the victim has been assigned to the husband of the informant namely, Sumit and no such role has been assigned to the present accused applicants. It is further submitted that they have cooperated in the investigation.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail.

¶9

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

¶10

In the facts and circumstances of the case particularly keeping in view that in other sections the accused-applicants have been granted bail and they have not misused the liberty.

¶11

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, llikelihood 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.

¶12

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, 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 end of the trial.

¶13

The application is allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicants Smt. Santosh alias Santaresh, Radhika and Km. Tannu alias Sonam involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions.

¶15

(i) The applicants shall make themself available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

¶16

(ii) 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 him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶17

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶18

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall

¶19

be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶20

Order Date :- 18.4.2023 AU

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ADEEB UDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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. Ramkali and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mannu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and Another