Allahabad High Court
Babita Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 August, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170936
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9270 of 2023
Applicant :- Babita Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Kumar Singh,Yogendra Nath Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 7391 of 2022, under Section 4/21 Mines & Minerals Act, 1957 and under the Regulation of 3/58/72 of Uttar Pradesh Minor and Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1921, Police Station- Ahraura, District- Mirzapur.
2. As per complaint, the opposite party no.2 made a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur under Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 with the allegation that truck of the applicant bearing Truck No. UP 60 AT 2179 was over loaded with sand and stone.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a lady and she is owner of the truck in question and she has been falsely implicated in the present case; she has no concerned with the alleged incident. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the complaint case, statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. is necessary but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without recording statement of the complainant and witnesses, issued the summoning order against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 23 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.
5. Heard Sri Yogendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
6. It appears that the complaint was filed by Mines Officer who is public servant. Under proviso Clause (a) of Section 200 Cr.P.C. if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses.
7. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant and the applicant is being a lady, she is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
8. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Babita Singh, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.
(ii) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iv) The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.
9. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2023//Krishna*
