Smt. Meena v. State of U.P.). The order dated
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130796 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4428 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
7. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Smt Meena, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses." 4. It is further submitted that after conclusion of investigation trial commenced under Sections 498A, 323, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. During the trial, the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. Copies of the statements are collectively annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the affidavit. Subsequently, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 27.12.2024 and Section 316 I.P.C. was added. The applicant has been summoned by the court concerned in the added section. The applicant had been appearing before the court concerned. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicant is a lady and has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants and the fact that during the course of trial the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version, the applicant has been summoned by the court concerned in the added section, the applicant had been appearing before the court concerned, no custodial interrogation is required and for the reasons contained in the order dated 10.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 955 of 2025 (Smt Meena vs. State of U.P.), without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 7. In the event of arrest, the applicant- Smt. Meena, involved in the aforesaid case crime, 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 applicant shall make herself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned; (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 from disclosing such facts to the Court; (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court. 8. Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.
Arguments
Applicant :- Smt. Meena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jainendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party, and perused the material placed on record. 2. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 265 of 2024, under Section 316 I.P.C., Police Station Jhinjhana, District Shamli. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant is the mother in-law of the deceased. The applicant was granted bail under Sections 498-A, 323, 304-B IP.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act vide order dated 10.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 955 of 2025, (Smt. Meena v. State of U.P.). The order dated 10.01.2025 is extracted hereunder: "1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Jainendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.265 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Jhinjhana, District- Shamli, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The instant case is just misuse of process of law as PW-1 and PW-2 have been examined as witnesses of fact and they have completely resiled from their earlier statements and have been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring them hostile. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case. 5. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.9.2024 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
Decision
9. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 #Vik/- Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad