Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7337 of 2025 Smt. Rano State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : : Himanshu Mishra G.A. Court No. - 69 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. This application under Section 482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 171 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station Jagner, District Agra. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, the applicant along with three named accused is alleged to have assaulted two persons namely; Vedpal and Rampal. As per the medical report of Vedpal, he received six injuries. The said injuries were simple in nature. Injured Rampal received five injuries. The said injuries were found simple in nature, except injury no. 1 on his head, which was found to be grievous in nature. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender, who caused head injury to Rampal. Identically placed co-accused Smt. Laxmi Devi has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 04.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3993 of 2025. Investigation has been completed. Charge sheet has been filed. The applicant has been summoned by the concerned court. Counsel for applicant 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 applicant is entitled to 2 NABAIL No. 7337 of 2025 be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no. 25 of the affidavit. The applicant has apprehension of her arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. 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 category being Category-A are 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 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 seven years. 7 7. It is not the case of the opposite party that applicant was arrested for the alleged offences during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party that the applicant had 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 seven years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (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 3 NABAIL No. 7337 of 2025 witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence. 9. 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 applicant 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. 10. Having regard to the submissions made, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant and the fact that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant, the fact that the applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender, who caused head injury to Rampal, identically placed co-accused Smt. Laxmi Devi has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, the fact that the offences against the applicant are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant had cooperated in the investigation and no custodial interrogation is required, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 11. In the event of arrest, the applicant Smt. Rano, 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 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 her before the concerned court. 4 NABAIL No. 7337 of 2025 12. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.
Decision
13. The application stands disposed of. September 9, 2025 Lbm/- (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad