Allahabad High Court
Murali Devi vs State Of U.P.And Another on 24 April, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3087 of 2023
Applicant :- Murali Devi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajmani Yadav,Ram Pratap Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. The affidavit of the applicant filed today is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Ram Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
4. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.368 of 2018, registered under Section 498-A I.P.C. at Police Station Badhalganj, District Gorakhpur with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the son of the applicant is stated to have married the informant despite her earlier spouse being alive as also she was not divorced. Initially, the FIR was instituted under Section 494 and 498 I.P.C. Later on, the said allegations have been found false and charge-sheet has been filed under Section 498-A I.P.C. only.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that she has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is the mother-in-law and has nothing to do with the said offence. Learned counsel has stated that the case of the applicant is at different footing to the husband Manish Yadav. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. 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. The applicant has apprehension of her arrest 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.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that already the process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant and she has not followed the direction of the court as such she is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said proceedings have been initiated at the behest of the informant during the pendency of anticipatory bail application at the trial court.
8. 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.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Murali Devi be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). 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;
(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
Order Date :- 24.4.2023/ Vikas
