High Court

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 79 of 2016, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Itiyathok, District Gonda. The notice has been issued to the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and as per office report, the same has been served but no one is present for the complainant/opposite party no. 2. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 12.11.2024, the following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release her on anticipatory bail in FIR No. 79 of 2016, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Itiyathok, District Gonda. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He next added that narration in the First Information Report is that while committing cheat and fraud, a registered Will-deed got executed, though the fact is otherwise that a Civil Suit is instituted, wherein the decree has been passed in favour of the present applicant and thereafter an appeal was filed by the complainant which was also dismissed with cost and, thus, the registered Will-deed was found genuine in favour of the present applicant. He also added that so far as the allegation for attacking with knife is concerned, the same goes against one Ramdev which is evident from the First Information Report itself. He submits that the applicant is a woman and she is 54 years of age and is suffering for her no fault. He submits that since there is an apprehension that the police will arrest the present applicant and thus, she may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is not entitled for any relief as she is named in the First Information Report and she has committed cheat and fraud. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the registered Will- deed in question was found genuine in favour of the applicant; the allegation for attacking with knife is not against the applicant and she is a woman of 54 years' of age, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of interim anticipatory bail. Accordingly, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Rajvanti, shall be released forthwith, in case of her arrest, in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. If the steps are taken, the office shall proceed accordingly. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 16th of December, 2024, as fresh. In the meantime, learned counsel for the State as well as opposite party no. 2 shall file their counter affidavits." From perusal of the order dated 12.11.2024, it transpires that the State counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thoroughly considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceeding or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Rajvanti till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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 or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this protection. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 kkv/

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 79 of 2016, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Itiyathok, District Gonda. The notice has been issued to the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and as per office report, the same has been served but no one is present for the complainant/opposite party no. 2. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 12.11.2024, the following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release her on anticipatory bail in FIR No. 79 of 2016, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Itiyathok, District Gonda. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He next added that narration in the First Information Report is that while committing cheat and fraud, a registered Will-deed got executed, though the fact is otherwise that a Civil Suit is instituted, wherein the decree has been passed in favour of the present applicant and thereafter an appeal was filed by the complainant which was also dismissed with cost and, thus, the registered Will-deed was found genuine in favour of the present applicant. He also added that so far as the allegation for attacking with knife is concerned, the same goes against one Ramdev which is evident from the First Information Report itself. He submits that the applicant is a woman and she is 54 years of age and is suffering for her no fault. He submits that since there is an apprehension that the police will arrest the present applicant and thus, she may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is not entitled for any relief as she is named in the First Information Report and she has committed cheat and fraud. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the registered Will- deed in question was found genuine in favour of the applicant; the allegation for attacking with knife is not against the applicant and she is a woman of 54 years' of age, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of interim anticipatory bail. Accordingly, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Rajvanti, shall be released forthwith, in case of her arrest, in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. If the steps are taken, the office shall proceed accordingly. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 16th of December, 2024, as fresh. In the meantime, learned counsel for the State as well as opposite party no. 2 shall file their counter affidavits." From perusal of the order dated 12.11.2024, it transpires that the State counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thoroughly considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceeding or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Rajvanti till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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 or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this protection. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 kkv/