Allahabad High Court
Smt. Dhyanwati vs State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. ... on 17 August, 2023
Bench: Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:54856
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 120 of 2023
Applicant :- Smt. Dhyanwati
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Smt. Nalini Prakash Jain
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. The applicant was granted anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 23.01.2023 which provides as follows:-
"Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No. 114/2020, under Section 498A/304B I.P.C. and section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Katra Bazar, District Gonda.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the the Jethani of the deceased; the independent witnesses of the prosecution namely Rajesh Kumar and Sumitra Goswami have not alleged the complicity of the present applicant in the crime in question.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court towards copy of ration card which shows that the applicant is residing separately along with her husband for the last several years from the incident.
It is further submitted that the learned trial court while summoning the applicant under section 319 Cr.P.C. has overlooked the plethora of evidence collected by the investigating officer on the on the basis of which he dropped the name of the applicant while filing charge sheet.
Issue notice to respondent No. 2.
Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed 15 days' time to file counter affidavit.
List on 21.02.2023.
Considering the above aspect of the matter, perusal of the record as well as the fact that the applicant is jethani of the deceased; she has no criminal antecedents; she is residing separately along with her husband for the last several years from the date of incident and the applicant is undertaking to cooperate in the investigation as also the judgment of Apex Court passed in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.
The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.
In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection."
2. On 20.02.2023, the office has reported that the notice issued to opposite party no. 2 has been served personally but the informant has not filed any counter affidavit.
3. State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of the material collected during investigation and a copy of the charge sheet. Nothing has come to light which may persuade this Court to take a view, different from the view taken while passing the aforesaid order, nor the learned A.G.A. has pointed out violation of any of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail committed by the applicant
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has already furnished bail bonds in furtherance of the order dated 23.01.2023.
5. Having considered the aforesaid facts, coupled with the fact that the investigation is complete, the charge sheet has already been submitted and there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, I am of the view that the application deserves to be allowed.
6. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the interim order dated 23.01.2023 is hereby made absolute and the application is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.
Order Date :- 17.8.2023
Pradeep/-
