Allowed

Smt Ashi v. State of Up

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2025ABAIL/1337/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the applicant's anticipatory bail application in a Section 306 IPC case, relying on Sushila Aggarwal. The Court directed the applicant's release on bail until the conclusion of trial, imposing standard conditions regarding cooperation, non-interference with witnesses, and appearance in court.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial subject to personal bond and conditions.

Smt Ashi vs State of Up — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11044

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1337 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt Ashi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akash Mishra,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohd. Haleem, holding brief of Sri Akash Mishra, and Sri Sunil Kumar, 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. 179 of 2022, registered under Sections 306 I.P.C. at Police Station- Friends colony, District- Etawah with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶9

On the earlier occasion , the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2024 and following order was being passed :-

¶10

"1. List revised.

¶11

2. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akash Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record.

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted and the investigation has concluded. Learned counsel has placed before the Court an order dated 12.12.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 12590 of 2022 (Smt. Ashi and 2 others Vs. State of U.P.) by which the applicant and two others co-accused were granted anticipatory bail till submission of police under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the applicant did not cooperate in the investigation. Further it is argued that the applicant is a lady. Further it is argued that co-accused Anil Chaube has also been granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 13966 of 2023 (Anil Chaube Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order is annexed as annexure 11 to the affidavit. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 43 of the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application.

¶13

4. Learned counsel for the first informant submits that non bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant on 05.12.2023. He submits that the order sheet of the trial court has not been annexed with the present petition.

¶14

5. Learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State are granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within ten days, thereafter.

¶15

6. Perused the order dated 12.12.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court which reads as under:

¶16

"Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶17

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 179 of 2022, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Friends Colony, District Etawah, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶18

As per prosecution story, the applicants and co-accused person Anil Chaube are stated to have abetted the deceased person to commit suicide by filing several petitions against him, asking him to give Rs.30 lakhs as a compromise with his wife i.e. applicant no.1.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicant no.1 is the wife of the deceased person and the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the brother-in-laws of the deceased person. There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicants have committed any offence or any overt act to instigate or abet the deceased person. Learned counsel has further stated that it is true that litigations were going on between the parties and it was the deceased person who initiated the criminal proceedings against the applicants with respect to alleged fake incident having taken place on 13.5.2017. The said complaint case was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 26.2.2021. Learned counsel has further stated that pendency of litigation cannot be termed as abetment of suicide. The co-accused Anil Chaube has already been granted anticipatory bail till the submission of police report by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 10994 of 2022 vide order dated 19.11.2022. 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. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal history and, therefore, they are entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶20

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶21

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicants deserve to be granted anticipatory bail in connection with the aforesaid case.

¶22

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following directions:-

¶23

(A) In the event of arrest of the applicants, Smt. Ashi, Shubhankar Arya and Nishant Arya, involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the

¶24

submission of police report, if any, under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned;

¶25

(B) The applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

¶26

(C) 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; and

¶27

(D) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants."

¶28

7. Connect with Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 12590 of 2022 (Smt. Ashi and 2 others Vs. State of U.P.) and list on 28.03.2024.

¶29

8. Till the next date of listing, in the event of arrest of the applicant- Smt Ashi, involved in Case No. 2612 of 2023 (State vs. Smt. Ashi & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 179 of 2022, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Friends Colony, District Etawah, shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on his 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:-

¶30

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

¶31

(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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court.

¶32

(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.

¶33

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

¶34

Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the anticipatory bail on the ground that the applicant is continuously absent from the proceedings and is not cooperating in trial. Even the bailable warrant was issued against her once, as such, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶35

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said allegations are false as none of the witnesses cited by the informant have appeared before the concerned court on a single date. The charge has already been framed on 22.05.2024. The applicant and her advocate are cooperating in the proceedings, as such the applicant

¶36

is entitled for bail.

¶37

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of her arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertake that she has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶38

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is 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.

¶39

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Smt Ashi 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:-

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Sumit S

¶49

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶50

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Ashi v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ashi 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suraj vs State of Up and 3 Others

Shivam vs State of U.P.

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

Raj Bahadur vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Sahani vs State of U.P.

Mohit @ Bhura vs State of U.P.