Allowed

Susheela Tripathi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2024ABAIL/2552/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Susheela Tripathi and Aradhana Tripathi. Finding no specific allegations against them and no fear of flight, the court granted interim bail.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted on personal bonds and two solvent sureties each with specific conditions.

Susheela Tripathi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2552 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Susheela Tripathi And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to release them on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0228 of 2023, under sections 147,323,325,427,452 of the IPC,Police StationJalalpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar.

¶7

Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated. He added that the applicants are the women and they were never involved in committing any offence. He submits that no specific allegation has been levelled against the present applicants and only the general allegations have been narrated in the first information report. He also submits that there is no truthfulness in the allegations made in the first information report and only with a view to implicate the whole family members, the present applicants have also been named in the first information report. Further added that the applicants are cooperating in the investigation proceedings and they undertake that they will never abscond from any of the criminal proceedings. He also submits that there is no previous criminal history of the applicants and they are the law abiding citizen and there is an

¶8

apprehension that the police will arrest the present applicants for their no fault and thus, submission is that the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶9

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid, but, he has failed to demonstrate that the applicants are in any way not cooperating with the trial proceedings or there is an apprehension that they will flee away form the investigation proceedings.

¶10

This court also finds that there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicants and they are women and there is no specific allegation against them.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of interim anticipatory bail.

¶12

Accordingly, till the next date of listing, the present applicants- Susheela Tripathi and Aradhana Tripathi , shall be released forthwith, in case of their arrest, in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bonds and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

(ii) that 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;

¶15

(iii) that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶16

(iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

(v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶18

(vi) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

¶21

Steps be taken within a week.

¶22

If the steps are taken, the office shall proceed accordingly.

¶23

List/put up this matter in the week commencing 06.01.2025.

¶24

In the meantime, learned counsel for the State as well as opposite party no. 2 shall file their counter affidavits.

¶25

Order Date :- 18.11.2024 AKS

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Susheela Tripathi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susheela Tripathi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Nanbabu Giri and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Vijay Kumar Singh @ Vijay Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Sumit Kumar Awasthi and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. and Another

Iqbal Malik vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ajay Kumar Singh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Mujeeb vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another