Sumitra Devi And Another vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 3146 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 77
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 14513 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Sumitra Devi And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Adil Khan,Nuruddin Khan
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

List has been revised.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0112 of 2021, under Sections 147, 332, 353, 504 IPC and Section 2/3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station-Sarpataha, District-Jaunpur, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

On 2.12.2021, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant, has passed following order :-

"(1) Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Yadav learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A and perused the record. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is not present.

(2) The instant application is being moved by the applicants Sumitra Devi and Bindu Devi invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that they have every reason to believe that they may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime no. 0112 of 2021, under Sections 147, 332, 353, 504 IPC and Section 2/3 of the Prevention of Public Property Damages Act, P.S. Sarpataha, District Jaunpur.

(3) From the record, it is evident that the applicants have approached this Court after getting their anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Session vide order dated 13.7.2021.

(4) Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

(5) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has got no criminal antecedents and he have not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced by learned counsel for the applicant on behalf of the applicant that he would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigating agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee away from the course of justice.

(6) Learned counsel for the applicants has strenuously argued that the applicant has been made target just to besmirch his reputation and belittle him in the public estimate by the informant. Number of arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicants by the informant. Learned counsel for the applicants has also relied upon the judgements in the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273; Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 and Sanaul Haque vs State of U.P. and another, 2008 Cri. LJ 1998, to buttress his contentions.

(7) Submission made by the counsel for the applicants that the investigation is still going on and the applicants are participating in the investigation. The applicants are ladies and it is alleged that both of them abused the members of Revenue team and tried to commit maarpeet with them. Contention is that the applicants are ready to cooperate with the investigation.

(8) Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicants have got no criminal antecedents but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicant to arrest him. The alleged apprehension on behalf of applicant is imaginary and unfounded one. Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the applicants are not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.

(9) After the close scrutiny of Section 438 Cr.P.C.(U.P. Act No.4 of 2019) and its relevant clauses, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out the case for interim order protecting the liberty of applicant in connection with aforesaid case crime pending investigation.

(10) Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the investigation and subsequent stage of the case, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicants in aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer till the submission of report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer with the conditions that :

(i) The applicant/applicants shall make himself/themselves available for the interrogation by the police as and when required. The Investigating Officer of the case would give 48 hours prior notice or telephonically inform the concerned accused-applicant to remain available to him/them for the purposes of interrogation and the accused-applicants are obliged to abide by such directions.

(ii) The applicant/applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threats or comments to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the correct facts to the court or to the police officer.

(iii) The Investigating Officer of the case would make all necessary endeavour to gear up the investigation in utmost transparent and professional way and would try to conclude the same within a maximum period of 90 days. During this period the accused-applicants would not leave the State of Uttar Pradesh without informing the Investigating Officer of the case and sharing his contact number.

(iv) In the event the applicant/applicants is/are having his/their passports, he/they will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District till the submission of report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.

(11) In the event, the applicants breach or attempt to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or wilfully violate above conditions or abstains himself from the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the court of Session for cancellation of interim protection and the Court of Session has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.

(12) While entertaining the instant anticipatory bail application before this Court, there is no concrete material on record except the canvassed apprehension of the applicant on his arrest and the severity of accusation made in the FIR against him. After being satisfied on the limited material, the interest/liberty of the applicant is protected by this Court with aforesaid riders during the course of investigation, after recording its nascent satisfaction. However, continuance of instant interim protection or ultimate fate of instant application would be decided, subject to the counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. and the material brought on record against the applicant during the investigation.

(13) Learned A.G.A. should file counter affidavit soon after submission of report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. or 90 days, whichever is earlier.

(14) Life of the instant protection would continue till the submission of charge sheet or 90 days, whichever is earlier.

(15) List this anticipatory bail application after two months before appropriate Court."

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and she has an apprehension that she may be arrested in the abovementioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. The applicant has always co-operated in the investigation till submission of charge-sheet and has not misused the liberty of aforesaid interim protection, which was granted to her on 2.12.2021 by coordinate Bench of this Court, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegation made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon length. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that she has cooperated in the investigation and is 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 applicant.

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 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 above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

Let the applicant-Sumitra Devi And Another involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial 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:-

1. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

2. The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

3. The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

5. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

5. That 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;

6. 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 his bail and proceed against him/her/them in accordance with law.

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 31.1.2023

S. Singh