Allahabad High Court
Nirmala And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 12 July, 2022
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4777 of 2022
Applicant :- Nirmala Yadav And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Atmaram Nadiwal,Dinesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.190/2020, under Sections 308/147/148/323/325/352/452/504/506 I.P.C. and Section 3 of Pandemic Act, Police Station Kothibhar, District Maharajganj with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.
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. According to prosecution version, on 03.07.2020 at 5.00 AM applicants and co-accused persons have trespassed into the house of complainant and caused injuries to complainant and his family members. Learned counsel submitted that the first information report of this case has been lodged against 10 accused persons including applicants and that only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused. No specific role has been assigned to applicants. The injuries of two injured persons have been shown grievous but it is submitted that said injuries were not dangerous to life and thus, no case under Section 308 IPC is made out. Learned counsel further submitted that in the same incident, four persons have sustained injuries from the side of applicants but their first information report was not lodged by the police. Both the applicants are women and no specific role has been assigned to them. It has further been submitted that applicants have no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicants so far. The applicants undertake 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, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during trial and would obey all conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that applicants are named in the first information report. Referring to case of Shiva vs. State (Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.2110/2021) decided on 05.04.2021, it is submitted that in view of guidelines laid down in para 43 of said judgment, the applicants are not entitled for anticipatory 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.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the event of arrest of the applicants- Nirmala Yadav and Seema Yadav in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 70,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/court below concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police as and when required;
(ii) 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 him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) the applicants would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.
Order Date :- 12.7.2022
Neeraj
