Allowed

Sarla Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jun 2024/1252/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to applicants facing charges under various IPC sections for an alleged affray. Noting cross FIRs and lack of criminal antecedents, the court held the applicants entitled to bail subject to bond and conditional release.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail in FIR No. 0385 of 2023 upon executing personal bonds and providing two reliable sureties each under specified conditions.

Sarla Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:42374

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1252 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sarla Devi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sujit Kumar Ojha,Prabhat Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.0385 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Antu, District Pratapgarh.

¶8

The factual matrix of the case are that on 09.09.2023 at about 9.30 hours, the opposite party no.2, his brother Akhilesh Shukla, his sons, namely, Saurabh, Gaurav, Resham along with one unknown person came in the field unanimously and forbidden the applicant no.2-Indrajit Shukla for stoning the wooden log in the field, however, the applicant no.2 had stated that he was restoring it to its original place and no other dig has been excavated, even then the opposite party no.2 along with his companions have badly beaten the applicant. no.2 on account of which he received multiple injuries and taken to the hospital. After got primary treatment, applicant no.2 went to police station on the same day, i.e. 09.09.2023, but the police did not register the case. The complaint filed by the applicant no.1 was registered on later date, but the occurrence of the incident is mentioned for the same date.

¶9

It is submitted by leaned Counsel for the applicants that the allegations levelled against the applicants are false, fake and fabricated. The applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that it was the opposite party no.2 who has created hindrance in the passage of villagers due to this reason one another villager, namely, Manoram Shukla

¶10

has lodged the FIR against opposite party no.2 along with his companion on 02.08.2020. The story of the prosecution is not sustainable in the eye of law as the alleged marpeet might not be performed by old aged persons who are already suffering from old age diseases. He further submits that the applicants have no criminal history.

¶11

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State has opposed the prayer for bail..

¶12

Considering the fact that the cross FIRs have been lodged against each other and both sides have alleged to have received injuries in the alleged incident, however, it is not known at this stage who was the aggressor; and also the fact that the applicants have no criminal antecedents, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶13

In the event of arrest, let the applicants - Sarla Devi, Indrajit Shukla and Vishvambhar Shukla be released on bail in the aforesaid first information report number on their furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

(a) The applicants shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶15

(b) The applicants shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶16

(c) 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 4.6.2024/Anand Sri./-

¶19

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

Sarla Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarla Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gyan Prakash Pandey Vs Gautam Gosh and Another

Smt. Shameem Bano and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Suryabhan @ Dablu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anurag Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Dr.Anuj Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Daan Bahadur Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another