Allahabad High Court
Urmila Devi And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 July, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:141206
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7558 of 2023
Applicant :- Urmila Devi And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Digvijay Singh,Sudhir Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Awadhesh Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Digvijay Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Satya Prakash Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
4. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Complaint Case No.590 of 2015, registered under Sections 120-B, 306, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., at Police Station- Nahtaur, District Bijnor with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
5. As per prosecution story, the applicants are stated to have subjected the victim to cruelty and are stated to have confined her, and thereby, are stated to have abetted her to commit suicide.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants were summoned by the court concerned vide order dated 8.3.2016. The applicants have nothing to do with the said offence. Learned counsel has stated that already an FIR was instituted with respect to the said incident as Case Crime No.203 of 2015, under Section 306 I.P.C., at Police Station Nahtaur against the husband Brij Pal @ Sonu. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicants have been summoned by using wrong process of the court as already an FIR was there and the applicants could have been summoned at the stage of taking cognizance or by invoking the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The said complaint case is misuse of process of the court. It is an admitted fact that it was a love marriage and case under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. was instituted by the father of the deceased against her husband. The applicants have no criminal history to their credit. 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 have also been touched upon at length. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes 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.
7. 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.
8. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Urmila Devi and Jyoti be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). 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;
(iii). that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
Order Date :- 17.7.2023
Vikas
