Allahabad High Court
Samina vs State Of U.P. on 23 May, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:113109
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5443 of 2023
Applicant :- Samina
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sadrul Islam Jafri,Ambreen Masroor,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahesh Chandra Maurya,Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sadrul Islam Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mahesh Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for the informant and Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.161 of 2023, registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 354-Kha, 307, 376, 511 IPC, Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, at Police Station- Lisari Gate, District Meerut with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the son of the applicant was solemnized with the informant as per Muslim Rites on 26.04.2017. The applicant and other family member are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry and are stated to have assaulted her making her unconscious in the said act. There are other allegations against other co-accused persons.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the informant and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing to do with the said offence. The allegations of outraging the modesty are against other co-accused persons. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of her arrest. The applicant being a lady is entitled for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that she has co-operated 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Samina 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 applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicant 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 concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
9. 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 :- 23.5.2023/Ravi Kant
