Allowed

Smt. Gitiya @ Sangeeta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2023BAIL/55954/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to the applicant in a matrimonial case involving Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The court heard arguments and perused the record before allowing the application subject to specific conditions of release.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 132 of 2019 subject to a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions.

Smt. Gitiya @ Sangeeta Vs State of U.P. — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171346

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55954 of 2019

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Gitiya @ Sangeeta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Raj Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Sudhakar Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Abhay Raj Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶9

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 132 of 2019, registered under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station- Mau, District- Chitrakoot with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is married sister-in-law (Nanad) of the deceased person and has nothing to do with the said offence. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated 16.12.2019 of this Court. The applicant has not misused the said opportunity granted earlier on. The applicant has cooperated during investigation and is even cooperating during trial. The instant application was filed after the submission of final report (charge-sheet). Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of her arrest Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertakes that she has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the

¶12

anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶14

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Smt. Gitiya @ Sangeeta be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i). that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

(ii). that the applicant 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶17

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶18

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶21

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶23

Order Date :- 24.8.2023 Vikas

¶24

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Gitiya @ Sangeeta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gitiya @ Sangeeta 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

Aditya Kumar Mishra @ Shiv Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajab Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Verma and Another Vs State of U.P.

S.M. Tariq Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Hariram @ Hariya Vs State of U.P.