Allowed

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

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2023ABAIL/6683/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to Usha Devi and Manoj Kumar in a case alleging illegal receipt of widow pension. Bail was allowed pending the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted pending filing of police report under S. 173(2) Cr.P.C. with personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties.

Usha Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:133534

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6683 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Usha Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Pati Singh Yadav,Rakesh Kumar Singh,Vipin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vipin Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

Present Anticipatory Bail Applications have been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants - Usha Devi & Manoj Kumar in Case Crime No.361 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC, Police Station - Lohta, District - Varanasi.

¶8

It is alleged in the F.I.R. that named co-accused, Sudama Devi was taking widow pension whereas her husband was already alive. It is also alleged that present accused applicants are also taking illegal benefit of the government scheme of pension. F.I.R. was lodged on 15.12.2022 and investigation started which is still going on. It is further alleged that the main allegations in the F.I.R. are against co-accused Sudama Devi, who happens to be mother of the applicant no.1 and mother-in-law of the applicant no.2.

¶9

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. Investigation is going on in the matter. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

It is further submitted that earlier, an anticipatory bail application was filed before this Court as Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.2496 of 2023, which was disposed of with the observations that since Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.812 of 2023 is already pending, therefore,

¶11

the accused applicants are not entitled for anticipatory bail. It is also alleged that the said writ petition was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.04.2019. It is further submitted that no widow pension has been taken by any of the present accused applicants and as such, they have no role in the offence as alleged in the F.I.R.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer. However, they could not dispute this factual position that widow pension was not taken by any of the accused applicants before this Court.

¶13

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.

¶14

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶15

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 filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the matter.

¶16

10. The application is allowed .

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released

¶18

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 Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

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

¶20

(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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶21

(iii) 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.

¶22

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicants.

¶23

Order Date :- 5.7.2023 Shivangi

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Devi and Another 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

Harendra Narayan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Malkhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Motilal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Veer Bhadur Yadav and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Veerendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.