Allahabad High Court
Shanti Devi @ Vimlesh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:95643
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5041 of 2024
Applicant :- Shanti Devi @ Vimlesh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Singh Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava,G.A.,Sajiya Parveen
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava and Ms. Sajiya Parveen, learned counsel for the informant.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.73 of 2002, under Sections 498A, 304B, 120B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Pisawa, District Aligarh.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. The applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased aged about 70 years. Entire family members have been implicated in the present case. The deceased herself stated before the doctor that she got burn when she was cooking food and at that time no one was present in her house. The deceased further stated that she was admitted in hospital by her mother-in-law. He further submits that during investigation, no credible evidence was found against the applicant and other co-accused persons, hence, final report has been submitted. Being aggrieved, the informant has filed protest petition, which was allowed and the applicant was summoned. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by learned CJM, who allowed the protest petition and summoned the applicant, the applicant has filed Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 No.7444 of 2005 before this Court in which stay order was granted in favour of the applicant but later on the said application was dismissed. He further submits that the information regarding dismissal of the application was never communicated to the applicant and due to this reason the applicant was not appeared before the court below and the court below has issued bailable warrant against the applicant. He further submits that similarly placed co-accused persons, namely, Pushpa Devi, Babulal, Rampal Singh and Satish Chand, who are nanad, chachiya sasur, mamiya sasur, have already been granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial vide order dated 03.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.3935 of 2024, copy of order has been annexed as Annexure No.15 to the affidavit. The applicant is having no criminal antecedent.
4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.
5. 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.
6. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Shanti Devi @ Vimlesh, 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 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.
(ii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iii) The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
7. 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.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.5.2024
Ajeet
