Allowed

Smt. Marajeena v. State of Up

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2024ABAIL/9672/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Smt. Marajeena in a case under the Essential Commodities Act. Relying on Apex Court law, the court granted bail subject to specific conditions including surrendering passport and appearing on key dates.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted pending trial subject to personal bond with two sureties and specific conditions including passport surrender.

Smt. Marajeena vs State of Up — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:165090

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9672 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Marajeena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA on behalf of the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.72 of 2020, under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, Police Station- Kakod, District- Bulandshahr, till conclusion of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Applicant is a lady and owner of fair price shop. On account of some irregularities found against applicant, contract of the fair price shop has been cancelled. During inquiry, Investigating Officer submitted final report thereafter on application, investigation was conducted and Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet. Applicant was served notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. and was cooperated with the investigation proceeding. Charge-sheet has been submitted and Court has taken cognizance. Applicant has no criminal history. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

On the other hand, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case

¶12

either ways which may be adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant- Smt.Marajeena, who is involved in the aforesaid crime, be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶17

iv. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

v. In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶19

vi. The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶20

Order Date :- 17.10.2024 SKD

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Marajeena v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Marajeena 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

Similar cases

Ajay vs State of U.P. and Another

Govind and 3 Others vs State of Up and Anothers

Smt Reena Jain and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Tanzeem @ Mohammad Tanzeem vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Farukh @ Fakru vs State of Up and Another