Allahabad High Court
Neetu @ Neetu Soni vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 December, 2023
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:241770
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13297 of 2023
Applicant :- Neetu @ Neetu Soni
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Yadava,Shiva Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Deepesh Kumar Ojha, Shivangi Tripathi
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Deepesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the informant.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.240 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 506, 326-A IPC, Police Station Sarai Inayat, District Allahabad.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Initially the impugned FIR has been lodged against 6 named persons including the applicant and 7 to 8 unknown persons. The applicant is a lady. Only general role of maar peet has been assigned to all the accused persons including the applicant. No role of acid attack is assigned to the applicant. He further submits that in the alleged incident, both side have received injuries. Applicant's side have also lodged the FIR against the informant's side. As a counterblast, the impugned FIR has been lodged. He further submits that the investigation is going on and till date no credible evidence is found against the applicant. In the alleged incident who was the aggressor is a matter of trial, which cannot be decided by this Court in its jurisdiction. The applicant is having no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph 27 of the affidavit. He further submits that there is apprehension of imminent arrest of the applicant and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.
5. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, 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.
6. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Neetu @ Neetu Soni, 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 her 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.
7. 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.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.12.2023
Ajeet
