Allowed

Smt Rahnuma @ Nahruma and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2024NABAIL/10153/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application by four family members of a deceased man accused of abetting his suicide in Lalitpur. Relying on Sushila Aggarwal, the court allowed anticipatory bail till charge-sheet with conditions and a personal bond of Rs.50,000 each.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail till filing of charge-sheet; personal bond Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each, subject to listed conditions.

Smt Rahnuma @ Nahruma and 3 Others Vs State of Up and… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:172188

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 10153 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt Rahnuma @ Nahruma And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jaysingh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

Present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicants, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.279 of 2024, under Section 108 of BNS, Police Station Mahrauni, District Lalitpur.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicants are residing in district Vidisha (Madhya Pradesh), whereas the alleged incident took place in district Lalitpur. In the alleged FIR, all family members are roped. Applicant no.1 is wife of the deceased, applicant no.2 is father-in-law, applicant no.3 is mother-in-law, whereas as applicant nos.4 and 5 are brother-in-laws of the deceased. It has been argued that the deceased committed suicide by jumping himself into a River. A perusal of the FIR, no ingredient of abatement for suicide is made out against the present applicants, though, to some extent, a case is made out against coaccused Salman Rayin. The applicants are maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and have an apprehension of their arrest. The applicants have nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶10

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 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 either ways, which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the

¶12

anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed.

¶13

In the event of their arrest, applicants - (i) Smt. Rahnuma @ Nahruma, (ii) Manjur Khan, (iii) Smt. Ruksana and (iv) Shahrukh Khan, involved in the aforesaid case crime, shall be released on anticipatory bail till filing of charge-sheet, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each, with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶14

i. that the applicants shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

ii. that the applicants 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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶16

iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶17

iv. that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

vii. that the applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned and, if he has a Passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the SSP/SP concerned.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have a liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.

¶22

It is made clear that the observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not, in any way, affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

Order Date :- 25.10.2024

¶24

RKK/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR KANNAUJIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Rahnuma @ Nahruma and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rahnuma @ Nahruma and 3 Others v. State of Up 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases