Allowed

Smt. Seema v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2024/84/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Smt. Seema in an FIR under sections related to criminal intimidation and assault. The court noted the applicant was not arrested during investigation, the charge-sheet was filed without her arrest, and a coordinate bench had already released a co-accused on bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties for a period of 20 days (till 08.02.2024).

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:5319

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 84 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Seema Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Srees Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter, including up-to date case diary.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the opposite party-State and perused the record.

¶8

This application has been moved by the applicant- Smt. Seema for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0220 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 and 308 IPC lodged at Police Station Hasanganj, District Unnao.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. Applicant is a lady and general role of assault with lathi, danda, kicks and fists has been assigned to the applicant and other accused persons named in the FIR and also in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, including the injured and no specific role of any kind has been assigned to the instant applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant being lady and she is not supposed to indulge herself in mar-peet. It is also submitted that during the course of investigation the applicant has cooperated with the investigating officer and, it is on this account, there was no occasion or opportunity for the investigating officer to arrest her and the charge-sheet has also been filed without her arrest. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has now been filed under the penal sections which are punishable with upto 7 years of imprisonment, however, the applicant is having an apprehension that when she will appear before the trial Court for the purpose of obtaining regular bail, as per the practice prevalent in the trial Court, the disposal of her regular bail application may take sometime and in the meantime she may be confined in prison. It is also submitted that identically placed co-accused, namely, Ashok against whom also the charge-sheet has been filed has not been given the benefit of the law laid down by the Hn'ble Supreme Court

¶10

Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Siddharth v. State of UP : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615 and it was vide order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12095 of 2023, co-accused, Ashok could be released on bail. It is also submitted that there is a cross-version FIR of which has been lodged from the applicant's side by Om Prakash on 23.07.2023 bearing FIR/case crime no.0221 of 2023). It is further submitted that two persons from the applicant's side, namely, Om Prakash and Ashok Kumar have also sustained injuries and after investigation in that FIR charge-sheet has been filed. There is a cross-version of the instant FIR and aggressor could only be determined during the course of trial. There is no apprehension that after being released on anticipatory bail, she may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the applicant's prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that during the course of investigation, the applicant was not arrested and, now the charge-sheet has been filed without making her arrest. The penal sections, under which the charge-sheet has been filed, are punishable with upto 7 years of imprisonment. There appears no justification of detention of the applicant in prison during the course of disposal of her regular bail application in the background of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, mentioned above and it is hard to digest that when the investigating agency itself has not required the custodial interrogation of the applicant and has submitted charge-sheet without making arrest of the applicant, why she should be detained in prison only on the basis of procuring regular bail. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others and Siddharth v. State of UP (supra) and having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant- Smt. Seema is hereby allowed with a direction that in the event of arrest of the applicant under any process of the trial Court or on her presence/surrender before the trial Court within 20 days from today i.e. till 08.02.2024 , whichever is earlier, she shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

(i). The applicant, if not arrested earlier, shall appear before the

¶14

trial court within 20 days from today i.e. till 08.02.2024 and cooperate in the trial and shall not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witness would be in attendance.

¶15

(ii). In case of further investigation or re-investigation the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and make herself available as and when required by the Investigating officer of the case, even for the recovery of any fact.

¶16

(iii). The applicant shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime during her release on anticipatory bail.

¶17

(iv). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and specially when the prosecution witnesses are present in court.

¶18

(v). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶19

If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the condition placed above is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and shall proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶20

It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.1.2024 MVS/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Seema v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Seema v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Virendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Sec. Home Lko.

Sheela Devi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Mohd. Gufran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt.

Bajrang Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Neelam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. and Another

Neta Ji Alias Kalamuddin Alias Nijamuddin Vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another