Allowed

Smt. Anjali v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2025NABAIL/1147/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS filed by a female applicant. The applicant sought bail pending the police report in a case involving allegations of abetment to suicide. The Court held that sufficient ingredients were not made out and granted bail on a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted until submission of the police report on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

Smt. Anjali vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21277

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1147 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Anjali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned brief holder for the State-respondent.

¶7

This application under Section 482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.384 of 2024, under Section 108, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Police Station Etmaddaula, District Agra.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the allegations in the first information report, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2025) decided on 17.01.2025 and Laxmi Das vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017) decided on 21.01.2025. The applicant is a lady and has no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶9

Learned brief holder has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

¶11

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant and the fact that as per the allegations in the first information report, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Smt Anjali be released on anticipatory bail

¶13

in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 193(3) B.N.S.S., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(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 or to any police officer;

¶16

(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 S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶18

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶19

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶20

The application stands disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Sachin Mishra

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Anjali v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anjali v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Manjeet Alias Bhalu and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Abhishek Rajbhar and 2 Others vs State of U.P.

Kadir @ Aadil vs State of U.P.

Awadhesh Rajput vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Prasad and Another vs State of U.P. and Another