Allahabad High Court
Smt Anjali vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:83514
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2714 of 2024
Applicant :- Smt Anjali
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Pushkar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Upendra Kumar Pushkar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
3. This anticipatory bail application (under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.532 of 2022, under Sections 365 and 306 IPC, Police Station Hapur Dehat, District Hapur.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. The impugned FIR has been lodged by the mother of the deceased. Prior to this incident, the applicant neither go to her matrimonial house nor she committed maarpeet with the deceased. The applicant was married with the deceased on 19.04.2019 and due to matrimonial differences, she stayed at her parental house before six months from the alleged incident where she gave birth to a bay also and after this, she did not come to her in laws house. He further submits that certain matrimonial cases are going on between the applicant and her husband. The deceased himself has committed suicide by hanging. There is also a suicide note found in the pocket of the deceased in which it is mentioned that due to harassment of family member of his wife, he committed suicide. As per post mortem report, cause of death due to antimortem hanging. Investigation is going on against the applicant and charge sheet has only been submitted against co-accused Bittu under Section 406 IPC.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that from perusal of FIR as well as statements of informant, it cannot be inferred that applicant in any manner had ever instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Except general allegation, there is no other evidence available on record to show that essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC can be attracted, therefore, it cannot be said that present appellant had instigated, provoked, incited, urged or encouraged the deceased to commit the suicide. Essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are completely missing even the contents of abetment of suicide have not been there as provided under Section 107 IPC. Prima facie no offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no criminal antecedent.
6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.
7. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, she is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
8. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Smt Anjali, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail till 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:-
(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iv) The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(vii) 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 her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.
9. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.5.2024
Ajeet
