Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sudakshana Gaur And Another vs State Of U.P. on 17 January, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5449 of 2020
Applicant :- Smt. Sudakshana Gaur And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Swetashwa Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Dubey
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 85 of 2020, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
On 03.09.2020, the following order has been passed:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Applicants-Smt. Sudakshana Gaur and Rameshwar Gaur, have approached this Court by way of filing this Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under section 438 Cr.P.C. after rejection of his anticipatory bail application vide order dated 06.08.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Meerut, seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 85 of 2020, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut.
3. Learned counsel for applicants submits that initially applicants, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law, have granted anticipatory bail under Sections 498A, 323, 354A, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act by Trial Court vide order dated 06.07.2020. However, on the basis of statement of Doctor Section 307 IPC has been added and anticipatory bail filed by applicant under added Section of IPC has been rejected by Trial Court. It is also submitted that applicants are innocent and no criminal history is reported against them. Lastly, it is submitted that applicants have apprehension of imminent arrest and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate with investigation.
4. Sri Santosh Kumar Dube, Advocate appears on behalf of Informant and undertakes to file Vakalatnama during course of the day. Learned A.G.A. appearing for State. They opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail and seek time to file objection.
5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, reasonable apprehension of arrest, taking into consideration the gravity and nature of accusation, there being no criminal antecedents of applicants, they are already on bail under Sections 498A, 323, 354A, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and are seeking anticipatory bail only in added section and there being no possibility of their fleeing from justice, this Court is of the view that at this stage prima facie case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of applicants.
6. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing for Informant pray for and are granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Learned A.G.A. shall communicate this order to the investigating officer of the case and Superintendent of Police concerned.
7. List this matter on 21.09.2020 before appropriate Bench.
8. Till the next date of listing, applicants-Smt. Sudakshana Gaur and Rameshwar Gaur, involved in Case Crime No. 85 of 2020, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut, shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:
1) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2) The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
3) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
9. In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to applicants.
10. It is made clear that in case certified copy of this order is not issued due to COVID-19 pandemic, the copy of order downloaded by the official website of the Allahabad High Court shall be acted upon."
Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have never misused the liberty as granted to them by the earlier order of the co-ordinate bench of this court. Charge sheet has been submitted in the added section 307 IPC. The applicants are in-laws and there is nothing on record to show that they have participated in the incident in which the injuries have been sustained by their daughter-in-law. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants has also been touched upon at length. He further submits that the applicants undertake that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.
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 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.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Smt. Sudakshana Gaur and Rameshwar Gaur be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
3. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
4. that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
5. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
6. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
7. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
Order Date :- 17.1.2023
Arti
