Dismissed

Smt Neeraj Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2024ABAIL/8838/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed nearly a year after the FIR was lodged. The court held that the applicant failed to establish any apprehension of arrest, citing Supreme Court precedents, rendering the application without merit.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 438 CrPC dismissed on grounds of non-disclosure of apprehension of arrest and delay.

Smt Neeraj Devi vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:145112

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8838 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt Neeraj Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Jatan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Heard Sri Ram Jatan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA, for the State.

¶8

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.45 of 2023, under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120B IPC, Police Station Rajawali, District Firozabad during pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation when it was revealed that the property in question has been sold to her then she has been made accused in the present matter.

¶10

He further submits that applicant is a bona fide purchaser. He next submits that present dispute appears to be a civil dispute and with regard to a sale deed executed in favour of the applicant a civil suit for cancellation of the same is pending which has been filed by the informant even before the FIR of the present case.

¶11

He further submits that investigation of the case with regard to

¶12

the applicant is still pending and, therefore, considering the facts of the case applicant should be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submits that FIR of the present case was lodged on 25.2.2023 and soon thereafter applicant has been made accused in the present matter but in spite of that the instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on 31.8.2023, i.e., for almost a year.

¶14

Learned AGA further submits that in the entire anticipatory bail application it has not been disclosed by the applicant that she is having any apprehension of arrest. He placed reliance on the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State of Punjab(1980) 2 SCC 565 and submits that as it appears that there is no apprehension of arrest of the applicant, the instant anticipatory bail application is not maintainable and without touching the merits of the case, it should be dismissed.

¶15

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

¶16

However, learned counsel for the applicant made submissions on merit of the case but on repeated query made by this Court whether applicant is having any apprehension of arrest he could not reply the query made by this Court.

¶17

Further, investigation of the case with regard to the applicant is however still pending but instant application has been filed after about one year.

¶18

Further, from the entire anticipatory bail application it could not be reflected that applicant is having any apprehension of arrest, therefore, considering the dictum of the Apex Court in two

¶19

Constitution Bench cases (a) Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra) (b) Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC OnLine SC 98, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned AGA that the anticipatory bail application is devoid of merits.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is dismissed .

¶21

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶22

Order Date :- 6.9.2024 SKM

¶23

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

Smt Neeraj Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Neeraj 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anju Verma vs State of U.P. and Another

Liyakat Ali vs State of Up

Jay Kishor vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tahir Hussain and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Yaqub and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Meera and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another