Allahabad High Court
Swati Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 August, 2022
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6875 of 2022
Applicant :- Swati Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar,Sunita Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant and counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the first informant are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants Swati Singh, Rahul Chaudhary and Pradeep Kumar with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 9671 of 2018, under Sections 306 IPC, Police Station- Mandi Dhanaura, District-Amroha during pendency of trial.
It is contended on behalf of the applicants that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Husband of the applicant no. 1 died accidentally due to electrocution in front of parental house of the applicant no. 1 on 30.9.2016/1.10.2016 at 2:30 a.m. Information of the alleged incident was informed by Fateh Singh to the concerned police station. After that inquest of the deceased Sonu Kumar was conducted by police of Police Station- Mandi Dhanaura, District-Amroha. At the time of inquest brother of the deceased was present. At that time no F.I.R. was lodged. The F.I.R. was lodged after 10 days of the alleged incident under Section 306 I.P.C. with the allegation that due to abatement the son of the first informant committed suicide. He further submitted that complainant herself moved the application on 19.10.2016 for withdrawal of the case along with compromise affidavit which is annexed as Annexure - 5 in the affidavit. He further submitted that final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer. Being aggrieved with this final report protest petition was filed against the applicant on 28.10.2017 and on the basis of protest petition the Magistrate summoned the applicant to face the trial. Being aggrieved with the summoning order the applicant has filed anticipatory bail applicant, which was rejected by session court in routine manner. The applicant has no criminal history. If the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will never misuse the same. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court 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.
In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
In the event of arrest the applicants are arrested, they shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The applicants shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The applicants shall surrender their passports, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.
3. That the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicants.
5. In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail, the Trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1.
6. The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 23.8.2022
Anuj Singh
