Allowed

Yamini Bansal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2024NABAIL/28/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court accepted a request for interim anticipatory bail during the pendency of the final hearing of an anticipatory bail application. While noting a discharge report showing no injuries, the court first granted bail on conditions to prevent arrest until the matter is decided on merits closer to the next hearing date.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond to the trial court with conditions to attend hearings, not commit similar offences, and not tamper with evidence until

Yamini Bansal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 28 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Yamini Bansal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Upmanyu Srivastava,Tushar Kant Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amar Singh,Kapil Dev Chaubey

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Amar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent complainant as well as Shri Nikhil Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the informant that the settlement in between the parties is not possible, this Court proceed to hear the matter on merits.

¶7

By means of this anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant prays for bail in F.I.R. No.338 of 2024, under Sections 115, 110, 333, 352, 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Gazipur, District Lucknow.

¶8

In terms of the F.I.R lodged under Section 115, 110, 333, 352 and 351(2) of B.N.S. lodged on 11.8.2024, it was alleged that the accused who were staying as neighbour near the home of the informant had an altercation with the informant with regard to which the informant had approached the society as well as the father-in-law of the applicant on which it was decided that all the persons shall meet at home and two daughterin-laws also be called so that the matter can be amicably settled. It is stated that when the talks were going on, both the daughter-in-laws entered in the home of the informant and attacked the wife of the informant and started hurling abuses and also threatening. It was stated that one of the two daughter-in-laws attacked the wife on the nose and other on her chest as a result of which she became unconscious and started bleeding of nose. The allegations were levelled as the wife of the informant, she was pulled and somehow she could escaped and the said two accused ran away.

¶9

It was also stated that wife of the informant became unconscious for twenty minutes and thereafter she regained the consciousness. It was further stated that both of them had threatened and used derogatory words against the family of the informant

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant based upon the said F.I.R. argued that the complaint was also lodged at the instance of the applicant. He argued that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. are baseless.

¶11

In terms of the earlier order passed by this court, efforts were made to settle the dispute in between the parties, however, when the matter was taken up today, it appears that the settlement is not possible.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has produced the case diary across the bar wherein as per the medical examination report of the wife of the informant which is tagged, no injury was noticed and despite the said, the chargesheet has been filed wherein it was stated that the offence under Sections 115, 333, 352 and 351(2) B.N.S. have been made out based upon the evidences collected.

¶13

After going through the case diary wherein no injury was noticed, learned counsel for the applicant argued that prima facie no offences are made out against the applicant, even as per the material collected. It is further argued that one of the offence under Section 333 B.N.S. is non bailable offence.,hence the applicant apprehends arrest.

¶14

Considering all these facts, a case for interim relief is is made out.

¶15

Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. are directed to file counter affidavits within three weeks from today.

¶16

List this case on 23.10.2024 on which date the matter shall be finally decided.

¶17

As an interim measure, it is provided that till the next date of listing, in the event of arrest of

¶18

the applicant- Yamini Bansal in Case Crime No.338 of 2024 (supra), she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond to the trial court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶19

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶20

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶21

(c) 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 or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

Order Date :- 26.9.2024

¶23

Shukla

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Yamini Bansal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yamini Bansal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suhail Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sundarpata Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Gullu @ Vijay Bahadur Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

M/S Raj Exports Thru. Proprietor Mr. Raj Kumar(Borrower) and Another vs Capri Global Capital Ltd. Mumbai Having Branch Office,New Delhi Thru. Authorised Officer and 2 Ors.

Shivsewak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Mobin Adees vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Sectt. Lko