Allahabad High Court
Sanjana @ Sunita Sahu vs State Of U.P. on 1 December, 2022
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11317 of 2022
Applicant :- Sanjana @ Sunita Sahu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.407 of 2022, registered under Sections 307 and 506 IPC at Police Station- Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj/Allahabad with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.
As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have attempted to cause the murder of her husband Suraj @ Sonu on 27.06.2022 at about 10:30 pm. The FIR was lodged by the mother-in-law of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The husband of the applicant had married her by concealing the fact that he was already married to one Archana Sahu since 24.04.2015 and he is paying a maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the said lady after an order passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Kaushambi in Case No.41 of 2017 vide order dated 20.12.2018. It is the applicant who has been duped by the husband and the informant herself. The anomaly of the matter is such that the applicant has also given birth to a male child and she is living separately to her husband. Learned counsel has further stated that the injuries has been fabricated as there is a statement of Dr. Dileep Dubey, Vedanta Hospital, Lucknow, who has categorically stated that the husband of the applicant was admitted at their hospital and was suffering from Pneumonia and had blood infection as such. Learned counsel has further stated that the doctor had not observed any injury to his neck. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that she has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". 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.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Sanjana @ Sunita Sahu be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. that 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
3. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
4. that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
5. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
6. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
7. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.
Order Date :- 1.12.2022
Ravi Kant
