High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131569 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 571 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Smt. Neelam Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Singh,Neetu Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ajay Singh Yadav, Sanju Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri J.K. Nishad, learned AGA for the State, and Sri Pradeep Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant, and perused the material available on record. 2. The present application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants in Complaint Case No. 50688 of 2023, under Sections 403, 406, 120B and 417 I.P.C., Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicants are recorded tenure holders and are in possession of the disputed land. No sale-deed has been executed by the applicants in favour of the opposite party no. 3. No amount has been credited in the account of the applicants. The applicants are not beneficiary of any illicit transaction. The case is purely civil in nature. The appropriate remedy for the complainant is to file civil suit before the court of competent jurisdiction. At this stage there is no credible evidence against the applicants to link with the offence. The applicants have been summoned by the court concerned. He further contends that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is upto seven years. 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 applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest in the above mentioned case. In case the applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. One of the categories being Category-A is offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinarily 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 terms 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 seven years. 7. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicants for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused are of such character that their mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use their liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence. 8. 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. 9. Having regard to the submissions made, by counsel for the applicants, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicants and the fact that the case is purely civil in nature; at this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the applicants with the offence; the applicants have been summoned by the concerned court, the offences against the applicants are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 10. In the event of arrest, the applicants- Smt. Neelam Devi and Smt. Sushila Devi, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on 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 applicants shall make themselves available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned; (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court; (iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport the same shall be deposited by them before the concerned court. 11. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.
Decision
12. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 SKT/- Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad