Allowed

Ranju Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2024NABAIL/11643/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed anticipatory bail to the applicants in a murder case under Section 108 BNSS, directing them to furnish sureties and adhere to conditions preventing tampering and ensuring court appearance.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed with security of personal bond and two sureties each, subject to specific conditions including no tampering and availability for appearance.

Ranju Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:197729

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 11643 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ranju Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.78 of 2024 registered under Section 108 B.N.S. at Police Station- Revtipur, District Ghazipur with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted against the applicants and their husbands stating that they have committed murder of the daughter of the informant on 02.08.2024.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no overt act assigned to the applicant as the case was transformed from that of murder to abetement to suicide. Learned counsel has further stated that the ingredients of Section 108 B.N.S. do not stand fulfilled as there is no overt act assigned to the applicant. The co-accused persons have been enlarged on regular bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶11

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application

¶12

for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶13

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 applicants.

¶14

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court.

¶15

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Ranju Devi w/o Sanjay Yadav and Ranju Devi w/o Jagdish Yadav 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

(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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶18

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

¶19

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 17.12.2024 Ravi/-

¶25

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ranju Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranju Devi and Another 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases