Disposed

Heera Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2024/1046/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court disposed of the plea by granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant in a Section 316 IPC matrimonial case, subject to conditions including appearance before the trial court and furnishing a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions including personal bond, two sureties, appearance before trial court, and cooperation in investigation and trial.

Heera Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74718

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1046 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Heera Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Saurabh Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Angrej Nath Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

2.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0419/2022 under Section 316 I.P.C., P.S. Nawabganj, District Gonda.

¶8

3.From perusal of the record it transpires that on 08.05.2023, the following order was passed:

¶9

"1.The applicant has moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0419/2022 under section 316 I.P.C., P.S. Nawabganj, district Gonda.

¶10

2.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

3. Issue notice to respondent No.2 returnable at an early date. List on 13.6.2023.

¶12

4. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is aged about 55 years. She is the mother of the main accused. It is next submitted that the prosecutrix and the son of the applicant were, as per prosecution case, in consensual relationship for about two years. The first information report has been lodged allegedly on the ground that the accused persons have refused to marry the prosecutrix. Earlier a settlement was arrived at, due to intervention of panchayat between the parties. However, it is alleged in the first information report that now the accused applicant refused to marry the prosecutrix. He further submits that there is no material on record to suggest that any abortion took place. The medical does not corroborate the prosecution story. As per statement of the victim, she was in love with the applicant. The Medical Officer of the hospital has clearly stated that on the basis of ultrasound and pathological report, it cannot be opined as to whether abortion took place or not. Charge sheet has been filed. He undertakes on behalf of the applicant that the applicant shall cooperate in the trial.

¶13

5.Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by the applicant's counsel.

¶14

6.Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the applicant having no criminal antecedents, the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that she shall cooperate in the trial and gravity of offence, I am of the opinion that in the event of arrest/surrender before the concerned court, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in this case in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, subject to her cooperation in the trial.

¶15

7.In view of the above as also keeping in view of the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC OnLine 98, the accused applicant is directed to surrender before trial court if she is summoned to face trial for offence in question after filing of the charge sheet. In the event of arrest/surrender before the concerned court, the accused applicant shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail by the trial court on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the following conditions.

¶16

(i) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or tamper with the evidence;

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

¶18

8. It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses."

¶19

4.Vide the aforesaid order, the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶20

5.Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has pointed out that the allegation of offence under Section 313 of I.P.C. is against the present applicant and there is ample evidence against him.

¶21

6.Learned A.G.A. has also supported the version of the learned counsel for the complainant.

¶22

7.Having heard learned counsel for the parties it transpires that the matter pertains to matrimonial dispute and prima facie there seems to be no ample evidence, so far as the allegation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is concerned and further it also apparent that for giving the gravity of the nature of the offence, the

¶23

allegation has been made in the F.I.R. and from perusal of the counter affidavit, there is nothing adversial to the fact mentioned in the bail application. The co-ordinate Bench has thoroughly considered and passed the order on merits.

¶24

8.In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby disposed of while granting the benefit of interim anticipatory bail to the present applicant till the disposal of the trial with the following conditions:

¶25

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶26

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶27

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

¶28

Order Date :- 12.11.2024 Arvind

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heera Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heera Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Home Lko. 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

Smt. Asha Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. S.I.T. Lko

Pawan Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Sharwan Kumar vs Chairperson Institute of Tool Room Training U.P. and Spl. Secy., Insti. Deve. Deptt. and Others

Matloob @ Pappu and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Sahil and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Virendra Kumar Lodh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow