Shilpi Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2603

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11951 of 2024

Applicant :- Shilpi Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State- opposite party, and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 502 of 2019, under Sections 306, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant is sisterin-law of deceased Chandan Singh. As per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are not made out against the applicant. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. Further, a vague and general allegation has been made against the applicant. It is next submitted that during investigation the applicant was granted anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, vide order dated 10.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8875 of 2022, Shilpi Singh v. State of U.P. and others. Investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been submitted. The applicant had cooperated in the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicant has been summoned by the court concerned. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has apprehension of her arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant and, in particular, the fact that as per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are not made out against the applicant, a vague and general allegation has been made against the applicant, the applicant had cooperated in the investigation and no custodial interrogation is required, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Shilpi Singh, involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall make herself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

¶13

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the concerned court.

¶15

Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶16

The application stands disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.1.2025 SKT/-

¶18

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

Shilpi Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shilpi Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajman Rajbhar and Another vs State of U.P.

Shahnawaz vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Singh vs State of U.P.

Vibhuti Prakash Alias Vibhuti Prakash Sahu vs State of U.P. and Another

Archana Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manish Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another