Smt. Jeenat Jahan vs State Of U.P. And Anr.
2023 Latest Caselaw 1270 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 12
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12401 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Jeenat Jahan
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

Vide order dated 06.09.2022, the applicant was granted interim protection by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Gist of the issue involved in the present matter is given in the said order, which is extracted below:

"Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Vyas, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Smt. Jeenat Jahan under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release her on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 118 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 417, 418, 406, 370, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Dargah Sharif, District- Bahraich till the conclusion of trial, after rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Bahraich, vide order dated 22.09.2021.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the present first information report has been lodged by Mohammad Imran against the applicant and another 11 named accused persons including the husband of the applicant Mohd. Mehboob Ahmad. It is further submitted that as per the first information report dated 15.03.2021 allegation has been made against the co-accused Mohd. Mehboob Ahmad and the applicant and other co-accused persons are family members of the co-accused Mohd. Mehboob Ahmad and they have been implicated due to family members of the co-accused. It is further submitted that there is no allegation against the applicant with regard to the offences as alleged.

It is further submitted that the applicant is no more required for custodial interrogation. The applicant has no criminal history and she has not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. It is further contended that the applicant is ready to participate in the investigation.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.

It is settled position of law that the anticipatory bail being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely roped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98, ground for grant of ad interim anticipatory bail is made out.

Learned A.G.A. may file counter affidavit within two weeks.

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter.

List on 28.09.2022.

In case of arrest, the applicant, Smt. Jeenat Jahan is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the hearing of the present application in above case crime number, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties each of like amount before the Station House Officer of Police Station/Court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required, if investigation is in progress;

(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 such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned/Court concerned;

(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked;

(v) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

The Investigating Officer will continue with the investigation, if it is in progress and will not be affected by this order. "

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a lady. Apart from general allegation, no specific allegation is levelled in the prosecution case. The applicant has been implicated in the case for the reason she happens the wife of Mohd. Mehboob. The applicant has not misused the liberty granted by this court. The chargesheet has been filed in the matter. She undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer made by the applicant's counsel, however, he does not dispute the fact that the applicant has cooperated during investigation.

On due consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of the record, so also the fact that applicant is a lady, chargesheet has been filed in the matter and the applicant has not misused the liberty granted to her by the Court, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, subject to her cooperation in the trial.

In view of the above as also keeping in view of the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC OnLine 98, the interim order dated 06.09.2022 is affirmed. However, the accused-applicant Smt. Jeenat Jahan is directed to surrender before trial court if she is summoned to face trial for offence in question after filing of the charge sheet. The accused-applicant shall be released on bail by the trial court on the same bail bond(s) as executed by her consequent to the order passed by this Court, as extracted above, subject to his satisfaction, with the following conditions:

(i) 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 tamper with the evidence;

(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;

(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

It is further made clear that in case the accused-applicant has not been arrested during investigation, then he shall be released on bail as directed above, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

In view of the aforesaid, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.

Order Date :- 12.1.2023

kkv/