Smt. Bhagmati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41939

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 371 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Bhagmati

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Nath Mishra,Neeraj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Uday Veer Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 B.N.S.S. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.376 of 2023 under Sections 409, 420, 167, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Paraspur, District Gonda.

¶9

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.4.2025 has passed the following order:-

¶10

" 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1State.

¶11

2. Issue notice to opposite party no.2.

¶12

3. First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime no.376 of 2023 under Sections 409, 420, 167, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Paraspur, District Gonda.

¶13

4. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 21.08.2023 when inspection of Kasturba Gandhi Hostel premises was conducted and majority of girl students were found missing without any intimation or entries being made in relevant registers. The warden, the Guard as well as the police constables have been nominated as persons responsible. The F.I.R. also states that upon enquiry it was found that missing children were in their respective houses.

¶14

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her and that she is only a cook in aforesaid hostel and even as per contents of F.I.R., the Sections imputed are not made out against her. It is submitted that applicant has been included in aforesaid charges only on account of fact that despite a substantive decrease in number of students, amounts drawn for purposes of fooding and lodging were the same and bore the signature of applicant. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶15

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed

¶16

anticipatory bail with submission that although applicant is not named in F.I.R. but her name has subsequently emerged during course of investigation as a cook in hostel who raised demand under her own signatures with regard to same quantity of food and other items despite a number of girl students being absent.

¶17

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, it appears that primary gist in F.I.R. pertains to girl students leaving hostel premises without authentication. Applicant has neither been named in F.I.R. nor is there allegation levelled against her. It is admitted by learned Additional Government Advocate that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNNS.

¶18

8. List this case on 28.04.2025 among top ten cases along with service report.

¶19

9. Objections may be filed in the meantime.

¶20

10. In view of above, interim anticipatory bail is granted to applicant providing that in the event of arrest, applicant Smt. Bhagmati shall be released on bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions, benefit of this order would not be available to applicant(s). "

¶28

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been released on interim anticipatory bail after filing of the personal bonds and two sureties in terms of the aforesaid order.

¶29

She has duly cooperated in the investigation. She has not misused the liberty of interim anticipatory bail granted by this Court. She has no previous criminal history. She undertakes to further cooperate in the investigation as well as in the trial and in case, she is enlarged on anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of same.

¶30

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶31

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation so also the fact that the applicant has complied the interim order dated 8.4.2025; she has no previous criminal antecedents coupled with the undertaking given by the applicant that she will further cooperate in the investigation as well as in the trial, the interim protection granted by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 8.4.2025 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid, the anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶33

Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Shravan

¶34

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

Smt. Bhagmati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bhagmati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Roshan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept.. Lko

Vimal @ Chuha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Awadhesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Nikant Jain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Nausad @ Nausar vs State of U.P. Thru Secretary Home

Rajesh Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.