High Court

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. The present application under Section 438 Cr.PC./482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 0273 of 2024, under sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 352 and 351(2) BNS P.S.- Purwa District - Unnao. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 20.12.2024, the following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- " Sri Pradhan Shukla, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record. Office is directed to print the name of Sri Pradhan Shukla as counsel for opposite party no. 2 in the next cause list. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release her on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0273 of 2024, under sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 352 and 351(2) BNS P.S.- Purwa District - Unnao. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive.The applicant is of 75 years of age and the first information report has been lodged by son while alleging that a land has been old out without getting it mutated in favour of the applicant. He added that false assertions are done at several level, but there is no truthfulness in the same. He added that the land in question is ancestral property and at the time of executing the sale deed, the same was in the name of the applicant. He also added that due to anonymity, the son has lodged the first information report against the applicant though, there is no cogent piece of evidence against her so as to connect her in the present matter. He added that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation proceedings and she being a woman will never abscond from the same. He also submits that there is acute apprehension that the applicant will be arrested by the police thus, submission is that the the applicant may be granted On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the submissions aforesaid and submits that at time of executing the sale deed, the property was not mutated in favour of the applicant and on place of the complainant, some other person impersonated and the sale deed was executed. He added that there is clear cut evidence that the applicant has committed cheat & fraud and as such, she is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. It has also been stated by counsel for the complainant that the case of the other co-accused persons are distinguishable from the role of the present applicant. anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State has also supported the version of counsel for the complainant. This Court finds that the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role other co-accused persons. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant-Smt. Ranno Devi shall be released forthwith, in case of her arrest in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on her furnishing 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 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 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 steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 27.01.2025. In the meantime, the State as well as opposite party no. 2 may file their counter affidavits. " State counsel has failed to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough 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 proceedings 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, Smt. Ranno Devi till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself 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 him 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 order. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Shravan

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. The present application under Section 438 Cr.PC./482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 0273 of 2024, under sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 352 and 351(2) BNS P.S.- Purwa District - Unnao. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 20.12.2024, the following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- " Sri Pradhan Shukla, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record. Office is directed to print the name of Sri Pradhan Shukla as counsel for opposite party no. 2 in the next cause list. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release her on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0273 of 2024, under sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 352 and 351(2) BNS P.S.- Purwa District - Unnao. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive.The applicant is of 75 years of age and the first information report has been lodged by son while alleging that a land has been old out without getting it mutated in favour of the applicant. He added that false assertions are done at several level, but there is no truthfulness in the same. He added that the land in question is ancestral property and at the time of executing the sale deed, the same was in the name of the applicant. He also added that due to anonymity, the son has lodged the first information report against the applicant though, there is no cogent piece of evidence against her so as to connect her in the present matter. He added that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation proceedings and she being a woman will never abscond from the same. He also submits that there is acute apprehension that the applicant will be arrested by the police thus, submission is that the the applicant may be granted On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the submissions aforesaid and submits that at time of executing the sale deed, the property was not mutated in favour of the applicant and on place of the complainant, some other person impersonated and the sale deed was executed. He added that there is clear cut evidence that the applicant has committed cheat & fraud and as such, she is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. It has also been stated by counsel for the complainant that the case of the other co-accused persons are distinguishable from the role of the present applicant. anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State has also supported the version of counsel for the complainant. This Court finds that the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role other co-accused persons. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant-Smt. Ranno Devi shall be released forthwith, in case of her arrest in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on her furnishing 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 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 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 steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 27.01.2025. In the meantime, the State as well as opposite party no. 2 may file their counter affidavits. " State counsel has failed to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough 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 proceedings 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, Smt. Ranno Devi till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself 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 him 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 order. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Shravan