Allahabad High Court
Smt. Soniya Alias Suniya vs State Of U.P. on 23 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87965
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3978 of 2025
Applicant :- Smt. Soniya Alias Suniya
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Bahadur Shivhare
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
1. The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Smt. Soniya @ Suniya in Case Crime No. 203 of 2017 under Sections 147, 149, 332, 353, 393 IPC, Police Station Biwar, District - Hamirpur.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and perused the material available on record.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant under Sections 147, 149, 332, 353, 393 IPC which is punishable upto 7 years. Criminal history of the applicant is explained in para-12 of the affidavit filed in support of anticipatory bail application. 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 applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State could not dispute the fact that the offence under Sections 147, 149, 332, 353, 393 IPC is punishable upto 7 years. He does not dispute the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil's (supra).
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. Once of the category being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinary 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 term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. It is further to be noted that as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto 7 years.
7. It is not the case of the opposite party that the applicant was arrested for offence punishable under Sections147, 149, 332, 353, 393 IPC during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party for that the applicant has not co-operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicant and the applicant has been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offence in which punishment provided is upto 7 years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil's (supra), the liberty of the individual is required to be protected.
8. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that her mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use her liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.
9. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:-
"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."
10. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.
11. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that she might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, she cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that she had criminal antecedent.
12. 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.
13. In view of the above, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail in respect of offence described in para-1 of the present order. In the event of arrest of the applicant, she shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- 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 for interrogation by a police office as and when required.
(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 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 concerned.
(iv) In the event, the applicant change residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned/Investigating Officer about new residential address in writing.
(v) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required.
(vi) The applicant shall maintain law and order.
(vii) The applicant shall at the time of execution of the bond, furnish her address and mobile number to investigating officer, and the court concerned.
(viii) The applicant shall regularly remain present during the trial, and cooperate with the Court to complete the trial for the above offences.
(ix) Non presence of the applicant or her counsel before the court concerned shall be construed as violation of the present order and the court concerned would be at liberty to take coercive measures in accordance with law.
14. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.
15. With the directions made above, the anticipatory bail application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 23.5.2025
S.Prakash
