Reena Sengar vs State Of U.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 16965 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Reena Sengar vs State Of U.P. on 14 May, 2024

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:86209
 
Court No. - 76
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4263 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Reena Sengar
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pooja Agarwal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
 

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Ms. Shruti Taneja, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Chandra Dwivedi, Sri Shimendra Tarpanna, learned counsels for the informant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, 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.770 of 2022 registered under Sections 364, 347, 328, 323, 506, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 147 IPC at Police Station- Auraiya, District Auraiya with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

4. As per prosecution story, the husband of the informant, who happens to be the real brother of the applicant, is stated to have left his house on 17.07.2022 stating that he is going to Auraiya market. A missing report was filed at the police station in GD No.063. On 26.08.2022, the brother-victim of the applicant is stated to have called the informant and informed him that he is hiding in the agricultural fields of village Rustampur, P.S. Sachendi, District Kanpur Nagar, as such he was retrieved from there by the informant.

5. The victim is stated to have informed the informant that on 17.07.2022 he met the co-accused persons, namely, Govind Singh and Saki, and they spiked his cold-drink and thereby rendering him unconscious and subsequently after him gaining his consciousness, he was forcibly asked to consume liquor. He was kept confined by the named accused persons and forced to sign on certain papers and also put his thumb impression there. The said accused persons are stated to have got the property transferred in their names through a registered sale deed.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about one and half month and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim was retrieved by the informant on 26.08.2022 itself and the FIR has been instituted on 08.09.2022, which is further delayed by about twelve days. The delay speaks volume of the falsity of the allegations. Learned counsel has further stated that no sale deed has been executed of the said property rather a gift deed has been executed in favour of the applicant who happens to be the real sister of the husband-victim of the informant. Several photographs have been annexed, whereby the victim is seeing enjoying Raksha Bandhan with the applicant.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no possibility of any person getting a gift deed registered at the office of Registrar without the presence of the husband-victim of the informant. The applicant has not been shown to be the person who had abducted or spiked the drink of the husband of the informant rather she has been shown to be present at the time when the victim regained consciousness. Learned counsel has also stated that the document is genuine. She has not executed any sale deed pursuant to the said gift deed.

8. 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. 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.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has stated that the husband-victim of the informant is a feeble mind as he is undergoing psychiatric treatment at Gauri Multi Specialty Hospital. Learned counsel has further stated that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is complete against the applicant, as such in light of the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

10. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said order dated 03.04.2024 of issuing proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is subsequent to the order of the Sessions Judge dated 23.03.2024, whereby the anticipatory bail application of the applicant was rejected and subsequent to it, the applicant had applied for anticipatory bail before this Court on 24.04.2024, as such the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Lavesh (Supra) is not applicable to the case of the applicant.

11. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the anticipatory bail application but could not dispute the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant.

12. The documents produced by learned counsel for the informant regarding the EEG of the victim shows normal awake EEG recordings.

13. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the fact that the anticipatory bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Sessions Judge on 20.03.2024 and the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued subsequent to the said order coupled with the fact that the applicant is the real sister-in-law of the informant herein, 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 theSupreme Court.

14. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Reena Sengar 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.

15. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

Order Date :- 14.5.2024

Ravi Kant

(Justice Krishan Pahal)