Allowed

Smt Neetu Sachan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2024ABAIL/9570/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal court allowed Smt Neetu Sachan's anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a dowry death case. The court acknowledged her alibi and living separately from the deceased but discharged the matter citing Supreme Court precedents on bail. The applicant was granted bail upon furnishing sureties and complying with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed until the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 50,000 each.

Smt Neetu Sachan vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:163877

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9570 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt Neetu Sachan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amrita Singh,Pradeep Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anand Mohan Pandey,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 138 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC and section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, P.S. Kurara, District Hamirpur during the pendency of trial.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that applicant is sister-in-law of the deceased Sakshi. The applicant was married prior to the marriage of deceased Sakshi. Admittedly, she was living separately to the deceased. Independent witnesses such as Jai Narayan and Meghnath have also stated that applicant was living separately with the deceased. It is also submitted that CDR of the mobile of applicant collected during investigation also discloses that on the date and time of occurrence i.e. 22.4.2024, the applicant was in New Delhi and she was not present on the place of occurrence. It is submitted that charge sheet has been filed against the applicant. It has been stated that applicant is having apprehension of imminent arrest and that in case, they are granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the investigation.

¶9

Per-contra, learned counsel for the informant submitted that process to ensure the presence of the applicant before the Court, has already been issued against the applicant.

¶10

In rebuttal learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the paragraph no. 11 of Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail

¶11

application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 4645 of 2022 wherein it has been held that coercive process i.e. N.B.W. should not be issued prior to rejection of anticipatory bail application.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the informant has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submitted that applicant was actively involved in the commission of aforesaid crime but it is not disputed that applicant is a married sister-in-law (Nanad) of the deceased. The marriage of applicant was performed prior five years from the marriage of his brother Kuldeep and since then she was residing at her in-laws house.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and antecedent of the applicants, considering the gravity of the offence, considering the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021, the anticipatory bail is liable to be allowed.

¶14

The application for anticipatory bail is allowed.

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicant Neetu Sachan shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount of Rs. 50,000/- with the following conditions:-

¶16

i. The applicant shall not leave India during pendency of the trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶17

ii. The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

¶18

iii. 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶19

iv. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶20

Order Date :- 15.10.2024/SY

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Neetu Sachan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Neetu Sachan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dilip Kumar Singh @ Dilip Kumar Patel vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Idrish Shah Alias Lallan vs State of U.P. and Another

Lokesh Kumar Alias Leelu Tomar vs State of Up and Another

Naveen Alias Navneet Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Kumar Seth vs State of Up and Another

Bhola Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another