Allowed

Parvati @ Manju Gautam v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Jun 2024/1393/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, a female accused falsely implicated in a family dispute, deciding she merits release on a personal bond with two sureties during the investigation stage without forming a final opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

Parvati @ Manju Gautam Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44036

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1393 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Samaj Gautam And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalji Prasad Shukla,Sanjai Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Anil Kumar Yadav, Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No.2, which is taken on record and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to delete the name of applicant No. 1 (Ram Samaj Gautam).

¶8

The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant (Parvati @ Manju Gautam) seeking bail in anticipation of her arrest in Case Crime No. 108 of 2024 under Sections-147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 308, 325, 452, 427, 392 IPC, Police Station-Raniganj, District-Pratapgarh.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant (Parvati @ Manju Gautam) is a lady and she has been falsely implicated merely because she is wife of one of the co-accused/Ram Samaj Gautam. A perusal of FIR as well as statements of injured witnesses, it is clear that general allegations have been made against 13 known persons.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA opposed the prayer and have submitted that two persons are injured, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence has been committed by the applicant (Parvati @ Manju Gautam) as she was named in the FIR as also in the statements of the injured persons. Therefore, no case is made out for anticipatory bail.

¶11

However considering the fact that there are general allegations against 13

¶12

persons who belong to same family including the applicant, who is a lady. From a perusal of FIR, it also appears that applicant (Parvati @ Manju Gautam) was not assigned any weapon for any role of causing injury to the injured persons, therefore, there is chance of false implication of applicant merely because she is wife of one of the co-accused/Ram Samaj Gautam. Therefore, applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶13

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations, gravity of offence and antecedents of applicant, she is entitled to get anticipatory bail during investigation.

¶14

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant, Parvati @ Manju Gautam involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶16

(ii) 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.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶18

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the application stands disposed of .

¶20

Order Date :- 24.6.2024/Vinay/-

¶21

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

Parvati @ Manju Gautam v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvati @ Manju Gautam v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Smt. Fatima Bano vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Than Singh vs State of Up and others

Laddan Husain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Amerendra Kumar Kushwaha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Sectt. Lko and Another

Moolchand Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others