Allowed

Rubi @ Pinki v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2024/2353/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An anticipatory bail application was filed by a female applicant in a criminal case involving multiple charges. The court granted bail, noting general allegations against 13 family members and the lack of an assigned weapon for the applicant, viewing the implication as potentially false.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including cooperation with investigation and not fleeing the country.

Rubi @ Pinki Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:77444

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2353 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rubi @ Pinki Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalji Prasad Shukla,Uma Shanker Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Lalji Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Parul Kant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant (Rubi @ Pinki) 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.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant (Rubi @ Pinki) is a lady and she has been falsely implicated merely because she is daughter 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.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and has submitted that two persons are injured, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence has been committed by the applicant (Rubi @ Pinki) 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.

¶10

However, considering the fact that there are general allegations against 13 persons who belong to same family including the applicant, who is a lady. From a perusal of FIR, it also appears that applicant (Rubi @ Pinki) 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

¶11

daughter of one of the co-accused/Ram Samaj Gautam. Therefore, applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶12

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.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant, Rubi @ Pinki 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:-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 22.11.2024 Asha

¶20

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

Rubi @ Pinki v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rubi @ Pinki 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

Vinod Upadhyay and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Kumar Chaurasia vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ziaurrahman vs State of Up and Another

Rubi @ Pinki vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Mohit Dixit vs State of U.P.