Allowed

Smt Vakeela and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2024ABAIL/5404/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Misc. Application sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for three applicants accused under Sections 498-A, 323, 326 IPC, and relevant DP Act sections. The court allowed the bail granting release until the charge sheet submission upon furnishing a personal bond with sureties and adherence to standard conditions, citing Sushila Aggarwal case rationale without expressing an

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants Smt Vakeela, Shama, and Mohsin on anticipatory bail until submission of charge sheet upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each.

Smt Vakeela and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114011

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5404 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt Vakeela And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Zaid Arshad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Narendra Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 89 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 326 I.P.C., Section 3/4 of D.P. Act & Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Marriage Right) Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Sahranpur.

¶8

Counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Applicants are in-laws of the victim. On perusal of contents of first information report, no offence under alleged sections is made out against the applicants. All the allegations alleged in the first information report are false & fabricated and only to pressurize the applicants. Investigation is still going on in the matter. Applicants have no criminal history to their credit. He further submitted that co-accused, namely, Smt. Shaista @ Ayesha and Mohd. Aabid have been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 29.05.2024 and the applicants' case is similar to the co-accused, hence, applicants are also entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicants are apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants with the contention that the applicants are not entitled for anticipatory bail as prima facie case is made out. The apprehension of the applicants are not founded on any material on record, only on the basis of imaginary fear, the anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶10

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and

¶11

considering the nature of accusation and antecedents, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case for the limited period considering the exception considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶12

Let the applicants- Smt Vakeela, Shama and Mohsin, who are involved in the aforesaid crime, be released on anticipatory bail till submission of charge sheet on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶13

(i) The applicants shall make themself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶15

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶16

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶17

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.

¶18

The anticipatory bail application stands allowed .

¶19

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Nitin Verma

¶20

Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Vakeela and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Vakeela and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Similar cases

Shyama vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalji Kannaujiya vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Kumar Tripathi vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar Shah vs State of U.P.

Nakul Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohit Gautam vs State of U.P. and 2 Others