Allahabad High Court
Vimla Devi And Another vs State Of Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home ... on 6 May, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26320
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 412 of 2025
Applicant :- Vimla Devi And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Azhar Ikram,Manish Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 1-State.
1A. In view of order being passed in this petition, notices to opposite party no.2 stand dispensed with.
2. First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime no.0048 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Alambagh, District Lucknow.
3. At the very-out, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned AGA has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the anticipatory bail application with the submission that applicant has already approached trial court with regard to anticipatory bail bearing no.2851 of 2025 wherein interim anticipatory bail only has been rejected vide order dated 22.04.2025 and the anticipatory bail application is still pending consideration and therefore the present anticipatory bail application would not be maintainable until and unless the anticipatory bail preferred by applicant before trial court is rejected.
4. In response thereto, learned counsel for applicant has drawn attention to judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pragya Kumari @ Pragya Bajpai versus State of U.P. & Ors., Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.298 of 2025 to submit that even in such situations, anticipatory bail application was entertained and orders passed.
5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of aforesaid judgment, it appears that in the said case of Pragya Kumari as well, anticipatory bail application has been preferred before this Court even while the first anticipatory bail application preferred before trial court was pending but interim anticipatory has been rejected.
6. Therefore in paragraph 7 of judgment has clearly enunciated the law that when the anticipatory bail application is entertained and a date is fixed for its disposal, either the merits of the anticipatory bail application should be considered itself and rejected out-rightly if not found worthy of consideration or interim anticipatory should be granted so as to prevent the anticipatory bail application being rendered infructuous during its pendency. The relevant portion of judgment is as follows:-
"7. An application for anticipatory bail may be filed by a person apprehending arrest by the police in relation with some cognizable offence. When a person approaches a court seeking anticipatory bail and the anticipatory bail application is entertained and a date is fixed for its disposal, unless an interim anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant, there is every likelihood that the anticipatory bail application would become infructuous as the apprehension of being arrested would continue and it may result in actual arrest of the applicant although his anticipatory bail application is pending. Therefore, the Courts should examine the merits of the anticipatory bail application and should come to at least a prima facie satisfaction as to whether the anticipatory bail application merits consideration or not. In case the Court finds the anticipatory bail application worthy of outright rejection, it should be dismissed. However, where the Court is of the view that the anticipatory bail application does not merit outright rejection and it needs consideration and decision on merits and the Court fixed a date for its disposal, in such circumstances, the court must pass an interim order granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant so as to prevent the anticipatory bail application becoming infructuous during its pendency."
7. It however is also evident that no such specific law has been enunciated in the said judgment and the anticipatory bail application was entertained only in special circumstances made out in the said case.
8. However this Court is also in respectful agreement with the proposition enunciated in the aforesaid judgment to the effect that in case the anticipatory bail application has been entertained without its out-right rejection and a subsequent date has been fixed for its consideration, then there is no occasion to reject the interim anticipatory bail.
9. In the present facts and circumstances, allegations as levelled in the FIR are to the effect that the applicant's being the aunt and cousin of opposite party no.2 informant have colluded with the prime accused Vidhyawati in creation of fabricated documents to indicate that the said Vidhyawati is the widow of late Naresh Chand who is said to be the uncle of the informant. It is however evident from the FIR itself that the same lady has been indicated as a nominee in the documents prepared during the life time of the said Naresh Chand.
10. In view thereof, the aspect of main accused Vidhyawati being the wife of deceased or not would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial and would also guide the factors applicable upon applicant with regard to their collusion in preparation of fabricated documents.
11. It has been submitted that the anticipatory bail application is now listed before trial court on 08.05.2025.
12. In such circumstances, the court concerned is directed to decide the anticipatory bail application on the next date fixed in case there is no legal impediment. In view of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pragya Kumari, interim anticipatory bail is therefore granted to applicant till final decision on the anticipatory bail application pending before the trial court.
13. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim anticipatory bail to applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 B.N.S.S.
14. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, applicants- Vimla Devi and Shani Kumar @ Shani shall be released on anticipatory ball in aforesaid Case Crime number on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or tamper with the evidence;
(ii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iii) The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(iv) The applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;
Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.
15. It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming them independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses
16. The application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 6.5.2025
Subodh/-
