Allahabad High Court
Swati Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 April, 2022
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2258 of 2022
Applicant :- Swati Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandranshu Gour,Utkarsh Khanna
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Ravi Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Diyanshu Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Utkarsh Khanna and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants namely Smt. Swati Singh, Smt. Radha Pyari and Dr. Awadhesh Kumar, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 145 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 324 IPC, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the State states that he has received instructions for which time was granted on the last occasion.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that in the matter charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants whereas co-accused Pratyush has been exonerated by the police. It is further argued that after filing of charge sheet, the applicants preferred an application under section 482 petition being Crl. Misc. Application 482 Cr.P.C. No. 47915 of 2019 (Smt. Radha Pyari and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and another) in which vide order dated 03.01.2020 it was directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the said case. Subsequently, the trial court vide order dated 05.01.2022 following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBI then issued bailable warrants against the applicants. It is argued that no offence whatsoever is made out against the applicants. It is argued that previously the First Information Report was lodged by Smt. Madhu Sharma against the first informant of the present case for enraging her modesty after which the first informant lodged the present First Information Report against the applicants and other co-accused, on totally false and baseless allegations. It is argued that even charge sheet has been submitted without proper investigation in a cursory manner. It is further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 19 of the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application.
Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is argued that in the matter Pankaj Singh the first informant has received injuries. He has medically examined in which he has received eight injuries on his person. The injuries were opined to have been caused by hard and blunt object and sharp edge. It is argued that applicants are named in the First Information Report and there are allegations against them.
After having heard the counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicants are named in the First Information Report and there are allegations against them. The first informant has received eight injuries. I do not find it a fit case for interference.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 12.4.2022
M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
