Allowed

Hiravati Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2024ABAIL/6941/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous application under S. 438 Cr.P.C. regarding Section 307 IPC charges, the Allahabad High Court allowed the applicant's bail. The court noted the lack of injury, familial relationship, and dispute origins in permitting bail pending trial.

What did the court decide?

The application was allowed, granting bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and complying with specific conditions related to appearance and tampering.

Hiravati Devi vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:118670

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6941 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Hiravati Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be finally, disposed off.

¶7

Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 97 of 2023, under Sections 307 IPC, Police Station Jansa, District Varanasi, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, till the conclusion of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is mother in law of the victim and on the basis of false allegations, only due to matrimonial dispute, she has been made accused in the present matter alongwith her other family members including husband of the victim i.e. son of the applicant.

¶10

He further submitted that however, FIR of the present case was also lodged for the offence under section 307 IPC but during investigation, police submitted a report that offence under section 307 IPC is not made out and thereafter, applicant moved bail application and court concerned released her on bail in the present matter for offence under sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act but during investigation, police again started implicating the accused persons including applicant for offence under section 307 IPC.

¶11

He further submitted that when applicant applied for anticipatory bail for offence under section 307 IPC then her

¶12

anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the court concerned.

¶13

He further submitted that admittedly, victim did not sustain any injury and there is no cogent evidence with regard to the offence under section 307 IPC.

¶14

He further submitted that applicant is lady, she is not having any previous criminal history and police is continuously trying to arrest her as investigation of the case is still pending.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record of the case.

¶17

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that the present case appears to be a case of no injury and applicant is mother in law of the victim and apprehension of arrest raised by applicant for offence under section 307 IPC cannot be ruled out, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in this case, till conclusion of trial.

¶18

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Hiravati Devi, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶20

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

¶21

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;

¶22

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

¶23

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the

¶24

trial;

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶28

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶29

Order Date :- 25.7.2024

¶30

Ankita

¶31

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

Hiravati Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiravati Devi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Murti Ram @ Ram Murti vs State of U.P. and Another

Vimal Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramendra Yadav vs State of U.P.

Aasu Alias Vivek Krishna Chaturvedi vs State of U.P.

Nagendra vs State of Up

Satendra vs State of U.P. and Another