Srimati Manoj Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 514 of 2025

Srimati Manoj Kumari

.....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s) : Counsel for Applicant(s) Rajeev Kumar Mishra Rudra Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A. Court No. - 13

¶5

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶6

Case called out. Learned counsel for the applicant is not present. Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned AGA-I is present.

¶7

Therefore, the Court proceeds to examine the records and pass appropriate orders.

¶8

On 12.05.2025, after hearing learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State, this court had passed the following order:-

¶9

"1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party.

¶10

2. Issue notice to opposite party No.2.

¶11

3. First anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to case crime No. 173 of 2015 under Section 419, 420, 427, 504 & 506 IPC,

¶12

ABAIL No. 514 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

P.S. Colonelganj, District Gonda.

¶15

4. As per contents of F.I.R., the applicant alongwith co-accused is said to have been instrumental in fabrication of will deed dated 08.03.2013 said to have been executed by the father of informant, Chhotelal who passed away on 13.04.2013.

¶16

5. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against her merely on account of the fact that she is the wife of grandson of the deceased Chhotelal. It is submitted that an unnecessary criminal colour is being sought to be given to a purely civil dispute particularly since as per her submission no suit for declaration of cancellation of the aforesaid will deed has been filed till date.

¶17

6. Learned A.G.A. on the basis of instruction submits that charge-sheet in the matter had already been filed earlier in 2016 but due to uncooperative attitude of applicant, bailable warrants have been issued against her.

¶18

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, it appears that primary gist of allegation has been levelled against co-accused with regard to alleged fabrication of will deed. Applicant submits that she is the wife of grandson of the deceased and was unaware with regard to issuance of any process due to which the bailable warrant was issued. She undertakes to co-operate during the course of trial.

¶19

ABAIL No. 514 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, it appears that primary allegation of alleged fabrication of will deed has been attributed to co-accused. It also appears from submissions that no suit for declaration or cancellation of the aforesaid will has been filed till date. The applicant does not have any previous criminal history and undertakes to co-operate in trial.

¶22

9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it to be a fit case of interim anticipatory bail.

¶23

10. Let the accused-applicant Srimati Manoj Kumari as an interim measure be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)2020 SCC online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶24

11. In the event of arrest, the accused-applicant shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:-

¶25

(i) That the accused-applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the

¶26

ABAIL No. 514 of 2025

¶27

4

¶28

witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶29

(ii) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶30

12. In view thereof, list this case on 12.06.2025, as fresh along with service report.

¶31

13. Objection may be filed in the meantime."

¶32

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation and a copy of the charge-sheet.

¶33

The learned A.G.A. did not point out any violation of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail by the applicant. Nothing has come to light which may persuade this court to take a view, other than the view taken at the time of granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶34

In view of above, the interim order dated 12.05.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed in terms of the order dated 12.05.2025.

¶35

September 19, 2025 Pradeep/-

¶36

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶37

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Srimati Manoj Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srimati Manoj Kumari 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

Mohd. Altaf and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Mohammad Zafar Siddiqui @ Mohammad Zafar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Shushil Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Durgesh Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Suresh Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru the Chief Secretary and 3 Others

Pinku Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko.