Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2023ABAIL/9547/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court rejected the prayer, holding it was not a fit case to grant bail despite the applicant's claims of innocence and divorce status, applying settled legal principles on bail discretion.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application was rejected.

Sudama Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:169657

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9547 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sudama Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Pati Singh Yadav,Rakesh Kumar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Bimla Prasad, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Sudama Devi seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 361 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC, Police Station - Lohta, District- Varanasi.

¶9

A widow pension was obtained by the present applicant in the life time of her husband since 2008. FIR was lodged on 15.12.2023 and investigation started, which is going on.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further argued that investigation is going-on and till date no charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused applicant. It is submitted that as a matter of fact the present applicant is a divorcee of Sitaram and the divorce with her husband has already taken place. It is further submitted that a registered will deed was executed by Shri Somaru Ram, father of the present applicant on 9.2.2004 wherein this fact has been disclosed that the divorce has taken place between the applicant and her husband Sitaram and she was living with her father. It is further submitted that the applicant is an illiterate lady and she is cooperating with the investigation of the case and is entitled for anticipatory bail. It is lastly submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed

¶12

the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is vehemently submitted that after making a proper inquiry into this matter the present FIR has been lodged. It is further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the husband of the present applicant Sitaram is still alive and even if she is a divorcee, she is not entitled to obtain widow pension.

¶13

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled 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

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, I deem it not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Prayer made in the application is refused.

¶15

The anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶16

Order Date :- 23.8.2023 Fhd

¶17

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudama Devi 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

Basheel Khan @ Baseer Khan Vs State of U.P.

Nempal Vs State of U.P.

Niranjan Kumar @ Vikas Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rajkumari Vs State of U.P.

Rajul Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Shareef and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another