Allowed

Smt. Seema Jaiswaal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2024/283/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought anticipatory bail in an excise and cheating case involving recovery of liquor, fake bottle caps and bar codes from her house. The court noted bail granted to two co-accused and that she was a woman without criminal history, and allowed the application subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, subject to conditions of appearance, non-tampering and no witness intimidation.

Smt. Seema Jaiswaal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15899

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 283 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Seema Jaiswaal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Harsh Bugga holding brief of Sri Surya Prakash the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Gyanendra Singh, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.1558 of 2022, under Sections 60(1) U.P. Excise Act, 272, 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 26.12.2022 against four persons, including the applicant, her husband, son and daughter alleging that 8 quarters of English liquor, 10 cans of bear and huge quantity of fake bottle caps, empty liquor bottles, 900 gm urea, 3 syringes and one blender, 265 bar codes were recovered from the house of the applicant. The applicant and her daughter were present in the house who told that her husband and her son, co-accused Atul Jaiswal and Harsh Jaiswal used to look after the business. A commotion followed and taking advantage of the crowd the applicant and her daughter escaped.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail-application, it has been contended that the applicant is innocent, she has no criminal history and she has falsely been implicated in the present case. Atul Kumar Jaiswal has been granted bail in the present case by

¶10

means of the order dated 03.07.2023 passed in Bail No.3563 of 2023 and co-accused Harsh Yadav has been granted anticipatory bail by this court by means of the order dated 11.07.2023 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No.1277 of 2023.

¶11

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that a co-accused person has been granted bail in the present case and another co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail in the case, coupled with the fact that the applicant is a woman having no criminal history and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶13

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Smt. Seema Jaiswaal before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

¶14

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

¶15

(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;

¶16

(iii). That the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶17

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 22.2.2024 prateek

¶19

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

Smt. Seema Jaiswaal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Seema Jaiswaal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

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. Reena Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Amit Singh Yadav Alias Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Vijay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lucknow and Others

Piyush Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vivek Pal, Thru. Father Om Prakash Pal Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and 3 Others

Vijay Kumar Alias Subhas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others