Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sharda Devi vs State Of U.P. on 2 June, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:94227
Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4118 of 2025
Applicant :- Smt. Sharda Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Gaur,Saurabh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Smt. Sharda Devi seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 83 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Gujaini, District Kanpuar Nagar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Entire amount has been paid in favour of the informant. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet has been filed in the matter. It is also submitted that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC vide order dated 21.11.2023 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 11570 of 2023 and she has not misused the said liberty. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial and would obey all conditions of bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. It reveals from the perusal of the record that entire amount has been paid by the applicant in favour of the informant. It further reveals that the applicant has not misused the liberty of anticipatory bail granted to her by this Court on 21.11.2023 vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 11570 of 2023. No custodial interrogation appears to be required in the matter.
7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.
It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.
It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
8. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764,the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87CrPC that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.
12. Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170CrPC, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."
9. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial.
10. The application is allowed accordingly.
11. In the event of arrest of the applicant, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her 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 applicant shall make herself available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.
(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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
12. In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.
Order Date :- 2.6.2025
safi
