Allowed

Radhika Devi v. State of Up

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2024ABAIL/9495/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed anticipatory bail application filed by Radhika Devi in a case registered under Sections 323, 504, 392, and 452 IPC. The court noted the inordinate delay in FIR and false implication allegations, relying on Supreme Court precedent, and granted bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions including availability for interrogation and non-interference with evidence.

Radhika Devi vs State of Up — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:193507

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9495 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Radhika Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pratibha Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Ms. Pratibha Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasiya, learned State Law Officer as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 112, of 2024 registered under Sections 323, 504, 392, 452 I.P.C. at Police Station- Dudhi, District- Sonebhadra with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR was registered under sections 323, 504, 392, 452 I.P.C. on 30.06.2024. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the said offence. Learned counsel has further argued that the allegations are false as the FIR itself is delayed by four months and nine days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is next stated that it is a clear cut case of false implication. Even Section 392 IPC has been deleted, as such the prosecution story stands falsified. The applicant, being a lady is entitled for bail.

¶10

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of her arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertakes that she has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and taking into considerations the inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court.

¶13

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Radhika Devi be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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;

¶16

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶21

Order Date :- 10.12.2024 Sumit S

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

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

Radhika Devi v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhika Devi v. State of Up

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rahul Agrahari vs State of Up and Another

Fateh Mohammad vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sunil vs State of Up and Another

Satish Kumar Bharti vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhiruddin Chuadhary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Mahendra Singh @ Abhay Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko