High Court · 2025

he was not able to tolerate his mental problems. His family members had spent considerable money on his treatment but he could not be cured. He stated that the applicant was responsible for his suicide. The applicant gave her physical and mental problems due to which he was compelled to commit suicide. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the investigation is still going on.

6. The learned A.G.A. has further submitted that the applicant has filed anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court and although his prayer for interim anticipatory bail was rejected by means of an order dated 29.03.2025, the anticipatory bail application is fixed for hearing on 16.04.2025 and as her application for anticipatory bail is pending before the Sessions Court, this application should not be entertained at this stage.

7. An application for anticipatory bail may be filed by a person apprehending arrest by the police in relation with some cognizable offence. When a person approaches a court seeking anticipatory bail and the anticipatory bail application is entertained and a date is fixed for its disposal, unless an interim anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant, there is every likelihood that the anticipatory bail application would become infructuous as the apprehension of being arrested would continue and it may result in actual arrest of the applicant although his anticipatory bail application is pending. Therefore, the Courts should examine the merits of the anticipatory bail application and should come to at least a prima facie satisfaction as to whether the anticipatory bail application merits consideration or not. In case the Court finds the anticipatory bail application worthy of outright rejection, it should be dismissed. However, where the Court is of the view that the anticipatory bail application does not merit outright rejection and it needs consideration and decision on merits and the Court fixed a date for its disposal, in such circumstances, the court must pass an interim order granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant so as to prevent the anticipatory bail application becoming infructuous during its pendency.

8. Anticipatory bail application in the present case was placed before the Sessions Judge, Lucknow on 29.03.2025 on which date the court heard submission of learned counsel for the applicant in support of prayer for interim anticipatory bail. The Public Prosecutor sought time to file objections. The Sessions Judge fixed the anticipatory bail application for hearing on

16.04.2025 and declined to grant interim anticipatory bail to the applicant in the meanwhile. When the Sessions Judge has entertained the application and it has not found it worthy of outright rejection, it would have been proper in these circumstances to grant interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts, even during pendency of the anticipatory bail before the Session Court, I am of the view that rejection of the prayer of the interim anticipatory bail by the Session Court makes out a special circumstance for entertaining this anticipatory bail application by this Court.

10. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R. alleges that the informant and her family members were pressurizing the deceased to obey them, without disclosing as to what was the command of the accused persons which they expected the deceased to obey; that although the deceased has mentioned the applicant's name in his suicide note, he has not made any mention of any specific act done by the applicant or any specific statement made or threat extended by her; that the deceased has mentioned that he was suffering from mental problems for treatment whereof enough money was spent by his family members and he could be cured and that the applicant is a young woman having no criminal history, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime.

11. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands allowed.

12. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Pragya Kumari @ Pragya Bajpai before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court: (i) that the applicants 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 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.

13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Sessions Judge, Lucknow. . Order Date :- 8.4.2025 -Amit K- [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

he was not able to tolerate his mental problems. His family members had spent considerable money on his treatment but he could not be cured. He stated that the applicant was responsible for his suicide. The applicant gave her physical and mental problems due to which he was compelled to commit suicide. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the investigation is still going on.

6. The learned A.G.A. has further submitted that the applicant has filed anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court and although his prayer for interim anticipatory bail was rejected by means of an order dated 29.03.2025, the anticipatory bail application is fixed for hearing on 16.04.2025 and as her application for anticipatory bail is pending before the Sessions Court, this application should not be entertained at this stage.

7. An application for anticipatory bail may be filed by a person apprehending arrest by the police in relation with some cognizable offence. When a person approaches a court seeking anticipatory bail and the anticipatory bail application is entertained and a date is fixed for its disposal, unless an interim anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant, there is every likelihood that the anticipatory bail application would become infructuous as the apprehension of being arrested would continue and it may result in actual arrest of the applicant although his anticipatory bail application is pending. Therefore, the Courts should examine the merits of the anticipatory bail application and should come to at least a prima facie satisfaction as to whether the anticipatory bail application merits consideration or not. In case the Court finds the anticipatory bail application worthy of outright rejection, it should be dismissed. However, where the Court is of the view that the anticipatory bail application does not merit outright rejection and it needs consideration and decision on merits and the Court fixed a date for its disposal, in such circumstances, the court must pass an interim order granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant so as to prevent the anticipatory bail application becoming infructuous during its pendency.

8. Anticipatory bail application in the present case was placed before the Sessions Judge, Lucknow on 29.03.2025 on which date the court heard submission of learned counsel for the applicant in support of prayer for interim anticipatory bail. The Public Prosecutor sought time to file objections. The Sessions Judge fixed the anticipatory bail application for hearing on

16.04.2025 and declined to grant interim anticipatory bail to the applicant in the meanwhile. When the Sessions Judge has entertained the application and it has not found it worthy of outright rejection, it would have been proper in these circumstances to grant interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts, even during pendency of the anticipatory bail before the Session Court, I am of the view that rejection of the prayer of the interim anticipatory bail by the Session Court makes out a special circumstance for entertaining this anticipatory bail application by this Court.

10. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R. alleges that the informant and her family members were pressurizing the deceased to obey them, without disclosing as to what was the command of the accused persons which they expected the deceased to obey; that although the deceased has mentioned the applicant's name in his suicide note, he has not made any mention of any specific act done by the applicant or any specific statement made or threat extended by her; that the deceased has mentioned that he was suffering from mental problems for treatment whereof enough money was spent by his family members and he could be cured and that the applicant is a young woman having no criminal history, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime.

11. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands allowed.

12. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Pragya Kumari @ Pragya Bajpai before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court: (i) that the applicants 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 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.

13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Sessions Judge, Lucknow. . Order Date :- 8.4.2025 -Amit K- [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench