Smt. Ganga And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 9287 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Ganga And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 August, 2025

Author: Vivek Varma

Bench: Vivek Varma

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:151613
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7039 of 2025
 
Court No. - 69
 
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Sri Vishvendra Singh and Sri Sandeep Mishra, Advocates, have filed their Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant- opposite party no 2. The same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State, and Sri Vishvendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant, and perused the material available on record.

3. The present application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants in Case Crime No.182 of 2024, Criminal Case No. 8679 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 110, 115(2), 352 and 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station Dauki, District Agra.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the first information report, the applicants along with seven named accused are alleged to have assaulted the informant (Laxmi Narayan) and Smt. Sunita, wife of Jagdish. As per the medical report as well as supplementary medical report of Laxmi Narayan, the injuries received by him were simple in nature. Smt. Sunita received a single injury on her head. As per the supplementary medical report, fracture of frontal bone was seen. In the statement of Smt. Sunita, specific role of assault on her head has been assigned to co-accused Raviya @ Ravi Kumar. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicants. The applicants have not been nominated as principal offender who caused injury on the head of Smt. Sunita. At this stage there is no credible evidence against the applicants to link with the offence. Co-accused Smt. Sunita has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 6657 of 2025, Smt. Sunita v. State of U.P. and another. The investigation has been completed. Charge-sheet has been filed. The applicants had cooperated in the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicants have been summoned by the court concerned. He further contends that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is upto seven years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicants are the ladies and have no criminal antecedents. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest in the above mentioned case. In case the applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the said liberty.

5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. One of the categories being Category-A is offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinarily the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. It is further to be noted that as per Section 35 B.N.S.S. also, during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years.

8. It is not the case of the opposite party that the applicants were arrested for the alleged offences during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party that the applicants had not co-operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicants and the applicants have been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offence in which punishment provided is upto seven years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) the liberty of the individual is required to be protected.

9. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicants for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused are of such character that their mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use their liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

10. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicants fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

11. Having regard to the submissions made, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicants and the fact that as per the medical report as well as supplementary medical report of Laxmi Narayan, the injuries received by him were simple in nature, Smt. Sunita received a single injury on her head, as per the supplementary medical report fracture of frontal bone was seen, in the statement of Smt. Sunita, specific role of assault on her head has been assigned to co-accused Raviya @ Ravi Kumar, a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant; at this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the applicants with the offence; co-accused Smt. Sunita has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court; the applicants had cooperated in the investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted and the applicants have been summoned by the concerned court, the offences against the applicants are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

12. In the event of arrest, the applicants- Smt. Ganga and Smt. Purvi @ Poonam, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) the applicants shall make themselves available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

(ii) the applicants 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court;

(iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport the same shall be deposited by them before the concerned court.

13. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

14. The application stands disposed of.

August 28, 2025

SKT/-