Disposed

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

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2023ABAIL/9371/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused an application for anticipatory bail pending investigation as it was not a fit case for bail at that stage. However, the lower court was directed to consider the subsequent bail application in compliance with the Satender Kumar Antil guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail refused; application disposed of with direction to move bail in terms of Satender Kumar Antil.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178233

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9371 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Sunita Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Smt. Sunita seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.291 of 2022 under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Islamnagar, District- Budaun.

¶8

The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that the named accused persons including the present applicant came to the shop of the informant and some altercation took place between them, subsequently he was assaulted by them with the aid of iron rod, lathi and danda and when his brother Gopal came there he was also assaulted. FIR was lodged on 4.8.2022. Investigation started and now the charge sheet has been submitted.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has apprehension of her arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned. It is further submitted that no specific role of assault has been assigned to the present applicant in the FIR. It is further submitted that the informant/ injured himself in his statement has not assigned any specific role of assault to the applicant. It is further submitted that only simple injuries has been caused to the injured of this case. It is also submitted that the applicant is a lady and she has been cooperative during course of investigation. It is also submitted that she is entitled for anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is vehemently submitted that the injured Bithan Pathak has received grevious injuries in the occurrence and in his x-ray report skull fracture has been found on left side of frontal parietal temporal bone and the doctor has opined that injury no.1 has grevious injury. It is further submitted that ample evidence has been collected against the applicant during course of investigation and she along with her husband made serious assault upon the informant and his brother.

¶11

In this matter, it reveals that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has also been taken by the Court concerned. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶12

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶13

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of the trial. The prayer made in this application is refused.

¶15

In the last, learned counsel for the applicant has urged that direction be given to the learned Court concerned to consider and decide the bail application of the applicant in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine

¶16

SC 825 .

¶17

Hence, it is observed that the bail application of the applicant, if moved, shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil case (supra).

¶18

It is further directed that the Court concerned while considering the bail application of the applicant in the light of Satender Kumar Antil case (supra), shall pass an order strictly in compliance of the directions given in the aforesaid judgement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in letter and spirit, particularly complying with the order dated 21.3.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter.

¶19

13.The applicant stands disposed of accordingly.

¶20

Order Date :- 15.9.2023 Fhd

¶21

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunita 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Agrawal and Anotehr Vs State of U.P.

Aamir Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sukai Harijan vs State of U.P.

Fardeen Vs State of U.P.

Alim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anuj Chauhan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.