Allowed

Smt Beena v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2024ABAIL/7212/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application by a lady applicant who was added as an accused eight months after the FIR registration in a property dispute. The court held that since the dispute appears civil and the applicant has no criminal history, she is entitled to bail until the conclusion of the trial, subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial with conditions for police cooperation, non-interference with evidence/witnesses, and appearance in court.

Smt Beena vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:128166

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7212 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt Beena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ali Imam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I, for the State, apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

¶8

Heard Sri Syed Ali Imam, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶9

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release her on anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.134 of 2023, under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120B IPC, Police Station Bhojpur, District Ghaziabad during pendency of the trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not named in the FIR but after more than eight months through the second statement of the informant she was made accused in the present matter with the allegation that she also sold the property in question even after agreement to sell executed in favour of the informant.

¶11

He further submits that entire allegation levelled against the applicant is false and actually applicant sold the property of her

¶12

own share.

¶13

He further submits that admittedly applicant did not execute any agreement to sell to the informant.

¶14

He further submits that only with malafide intention to grab the property of the applicant, informant during investigation after eight months implicated the applicant in the present matter.

¶15

He further submits that even the present dispute appears to be a civil dispute.

¶16

He next submits that applicant is a lady and she is not having any previous criminal history and all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate First Class.

¶17

He next argued that investigation of the case is still pending and police is trying to arrest the applicant.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that applicant has been made accused in the present matter after eight months and present dispute appears to be a civil dispute and applicant is a lady and she is not having any previous criminal history and all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate First Class and apprehension of arrest raised by applicant cannot be ruled out at this stage, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial.

¶21

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

¶22

In the event of arrest of the applicant -Smt. Beena involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of the trial case 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:-

¶23

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

¶24

(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.

¶25

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

¶26

(iv) that the applicant shall not temper with the evidence during the trial;

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

It is made clear that the observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the

¶31

learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶32

Order Date :- 8.8.2024 SKM

¶33

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Beena v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Beena v. State of U.P.

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

Sanjay Verma @ Sanjay vs State of Up and Another

Indrajeet and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another

Rajkumar Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahipal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shobhit Singh Alias Shiv Kumar Singh and 3 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Gulzar vs State of Up