Dismissed¶¶16

Smt Nandika Sharma @ Nandita and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2025ABAIL/9837/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.; order dated 24.7.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:122868; Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9837 of 2024; applicants Smt Nandika Sharma @ Nandita and Smt Sushila Sharma; opposite party State of U.P. and Another; Case Crime No. 145 of 2023; Sections 323, 307, 498A, 504, 506 IPC; Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; P.S. Chhapaar, District Muzaffar Nagar; anticipatory bail rejected; interim bail vacated for non-compliance with appearance condition; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 relied on.

What did the court decide?

The applicants were not complying with the condition of the interim anticipatory bail order requiring them to make themselves available on each date fixed by the Court concerned. ¶¶13

Smt Nandika Sharma @ Nandita and Another Vs State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122868

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9837 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt Nandika Sharma @ Nandita And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anand Prakash Dubey, Prashant Kumar Dubey,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today in the Court on behalf of applicant, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Prashant Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present application has been moved on behalf of the applicants Smt. Nandika Sharma @ Nandita and Smt. Sushila Sharma seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 145 of 2023 under Sections 323, 307, 498A, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chhapaar, District Muzaffar Nagar, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail.

¶9

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Learned counsel further argued that the applicants has committed no offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that no coercive process has been issued against the applicants so far. It

¶10

was also submitted that applicants undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A.has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶12

The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.10.2024 has granted interim anticipatory bail to the accusedapplicants.

¶13

7.The interim order granted by this Court goes to show that the applicants were granted interim anticipatory bail application subject to the conditions contained in that order and one of the condition was that the applicants shall make themselves available on each date fixed in the matter by the Court concerned. Perusal of the order sheets of the case, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-SA1 to the supplementary affidavit shows that the applicants are not complying with the condition imposed by this Court while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicants. Furthermore, perusal of the record also shows that there is specific allegations against the applicants. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, has held that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶14

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments made in the present application, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶16

Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.

¶17

Order Date :- 24.7.2025 S.Ali

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Nandika Sharma @ Nandita and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nandika Sharma @ Nandita and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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