Allahabad High Court
Aprajita vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 August, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:153890
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8635 of 2023
Applicant :- Aprajita
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Sharan Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hemendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Shiv Sharan Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sitesh Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.109 of 2023, registered under Sections 498A, 306 and 506 IPC at Police Station- Gonda, District Aligarh with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have administered some obnoxious material to the sister of the informant, thereby leading to her death in the night of 17/18.04.2023.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is an unmarried sister-in-law of the deceased person and has nothing to do with the said offence. The allegations in the FIR are false as it is delayed by about more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that at the stage of recording of inquest proceedings, the first informant is the inquest witness no.1. Had the allegations made in the FIR been true, he would have revealed the name of the applicant and other co-accused persons at the stage of proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. itself? 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. 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 counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application and have stated that the regular bail application of the co-accused person is pending.
7. 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.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-Aprajita 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 concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
9. 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 :- 2.8.2023
Ravi Kant
