Allahabad High Court
Jimarti Bai And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 March, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 844 of 2023
Applicant :- Imarti Bai And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijit Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
01. Heard Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the papers on record.
02. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.780 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 504, 506 and 325 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur.
03. As per prosecution case, father of the first informant was attacked by all the accused persons who were holding different weapons like countrymade pistol, pharsa, knife, spade and iron rod; it is alleged in its F.I.R. that the informant's father was attacked the moment he reached in front of the house of Devendra Yadav(one of the co-accused). It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that applicant no.1 Imarti Bai was holding an iron rod and applicant no.2 was holding knife in her hand. The first informant's father sustained a number of injuries; because of physical assault his father fell on the ground; They dragged him inside their house; The first informant raised alarm and tried to save his father.
04. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that F.I.R. contains exaggerated version of the incident. The present applicants, who were women of the house, did not participate in the incident and they have been implicated falsely just to exert pressure on them. It is further contended that he was never hit by any shot; No injury from sharp edged weapon was sustained by the injured. It is argued that the applicants were granted anticipatory bail by order dated 08.12.2021 passed in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.19267 of 2021 and that they did not misuse the liberty so granted. The applicant no.1 is 66 years old lady and the applicant no.2 is her daughter-in-law. In the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 the applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail after filing of chargesheet.
05. The anticipatory bail application is vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. on following facts/circumstances and arguments:-
i. The applicants have been named in the F.I.R. with the direct and clear role assigned to them of attacking the injured with the weapons they carried in their hands.
ii. As per statements of witnesses and F.I.R. itself the applicant no.1 was carrying iron rod in hand and the applicant no.2 was carrying a knife.
iii. It is also pointed out that the incident took place in front of house of the accused persons, therefore, the possibility of the presence of the women of the house and their participation in the incident cannot be ruled out.
iv. During investigation blood stained weapons were recovered from the corner of house of the accused persons. The injured sustained a number of injuries including lacerated bone deep wound on the top of skull and seven others. Three injuries were found grievous in nature.
v. It is argued that where direct evidence against the accused persons is available the defence of being women is uncalled for. It is argued that chargesheet has been submitted against the accused persons therefore, it may be presumed that sufficient evidence has been found showing their complicity in the incident. In such circumstances, it shall not at all be proper to grant them anticipatory bail just because of their being women.
06. Prima facie it does not appear that the F.I.R. has been lodged against them with the purpose of bringing disgrace or cause humiliation to them by having them arrested in a mala fide manner. It may also be kept in mind that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised in suitable cases only. The powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be utilized in a routine manner and definitely not as a substitute for regular bail. This discretionary power calls for existence of facts of the kind where the court is satisfied that its interference is necessary to further the cause of justice and to prevent misuse of process of law.
07. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find it fit case to grant benefit of anticipatory bail.
08. Hence the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
09. It is made clear that observations made in rejecting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.
Order Date :- 1.3.2023
Asha
