Allowed

Shweta Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others.

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024ABAIL/5545/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Shweta Singh, in a case involving alleged rape and POCSO offences. The bail was granted till the submission of the police report on personal bond with two sureties and standard conditions including interrogation and non-flight.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till submission of police report on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

Shweta Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114533

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5545 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shweta Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others. Counsel for Applicant :- Pulak Ganguly,Vikash Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Learned AGA on the basis of instructions submits that notice of the instant bail application has been served upon informant/opposite party no.4 on 5.6.2024. The notice has also been served upon C.W.C. on 6.6.2024. The receiving endorsements have been produced by learned AGA, the same are taken on record. However when the case called out, no one appears on behalf of the said opposite parties nor any counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

This application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in S.T. No. 774 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 274 of 2022, under section 376(3), 120B I.P.C., and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Ramkola, District Kushinagar.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a lady and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Placing reliance on the medical report of the doctor it is contended that the victim was aged 18 years. The victim and the co-accused Aditya Singh @ Monu Singh were in consensual relationship. In that regard, whatsapp messages and photographs of the co-accused and victim have been annexed as Annexure-10 to the affidavit. The applicant was not involved in the alleged incident. It is next contended that the co-accused Aditya Singh @ Monu Singh has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 6.7.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20096 2023. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicant has apprehension of her arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

¶12

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant,

¶13

considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶14

In the event of arrest, the applicant Shweta Singh be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶18

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 applicant.

¶19

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 copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶20

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶21

The application stands disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 S.S.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shweta Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shweta Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others.

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

Anil Kumar Tiwari @ Suneel and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt Nisha Lambert and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Siddhu @ Sidu vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Kumar Sharma and Another vs State of Up and Another

Jitendra Kanaujiya vs State of Up and Another

Vansh Chaudhary vs State of U.P.