Allowed

Sunita Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2024ABAIL/2716/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim anticipatory bail granted to Sunita Devi in IPC forgery case involving disputed wills. Released on bond and sureties with conditions against evidence tampering and pending listing. No prior criminal history noted.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted on personal bond and two solvent sureties subject to standard conditions pending listing.

Sunita Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Lko… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2716 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Sunita Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Sri Vinay Kumar Tiwari, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record.

¶6

Office is directed to print the name of Sri Vinay Kumar Tiwari, as counsel for opposite party no. 2 in the next cause list.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vinay Kumar Tiwari, learned cousnel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release her on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 191 of 2023, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC P.S.- Kotwali Nagar District - Gonda.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is a lady and she has been falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the allegation against the applicant is that she is a marginal witness in an alleged forged will which was got executed in the name of mother-in-law of the applicant and the executor has been shown as the father of the complainant. He added that in fact the applicant had no knowledge with respect to any will deed executed in favour of Jamwanti, mother-in-law of the applicant, as the applicant never produced the same before any authority after execution of the will deed, since 1996 up till date. He also added that another first information report bearing case crime no. 879 of 2023 which was lodged for committing cheat & fraud for again got executed will deed in favour of Jamwanti wherein, the applicant has been shown as the marginal witnesses. The applicant approached this Court wherein, she has been enlarged on anticipatory bail in criminal misc. anticipatory bail application under section 438 of Cr.p.C. No. 2138 of 2024 vide order dated 03.10.2024. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history except apart the

¶10

one case and she is cooperating in the investigation proceedings and she will never abscond from the investigation proceedings as well as the trial proceedings. He also submits that there is acute apprehension that the applicant will be arrested by the police thus, submission is that the the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposed the submissions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is a marginal witness and her case is of witnessing the impersonation and thus, the role of the present applicant is substantial and she is not entitled for any relief.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the version of counsel for the complainant.

¶13

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is a marginal witness and she is said to be involved in committing offence whereas, the fact remains that a will deed was executed in year 1996 wherein, the applicant was marginal witness and between same parties, again a will deed was executed in year 2003 wherein, the applicant is also witnessed the probate. The will is executed in favour of mother-in-law of the applicant namely, Jamwanti and prima facie, Jamvanti is the beneficiary of the will deed. This Court has also taken note of fact that the will deed has never been produced for its execution after year 1996 up till date. The applicant has also been enlarged on anticipatory bail in another case wherein, she is said to be the marginal witness, between the same parties. The applicant has no previous criminal history except apart one case and she is a woman and there is acute apprehension that she will be arrested by the police.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Sunita Devi shall be released forthwith, in case of her arrest in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on her furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

(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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Steps be taken within a week.

¶24

If steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly.

¶25

List/put up this matter in fourth week of January, 2025.

¶26

In the meantime, the State as well as opposite party no. 2 may file their counter affidavits.

¶27

Order Date :- 17.12.2024 Mayank

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sunita Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home 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

Shyam Pathak S/O Late Durga Shanker Pathak Obj. Filed Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary Tax and Registration

Nisar Ahmad and Another Objection Filed Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secy.Tax and Others

Mamta Girls Degree College Thru. Its Manager Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Higher Edu. Govt. Lko and 3 Others

Shiv Autar Sharma and 10 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Rambabu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Jaikeerat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.