Allahabad High Court
Aneeta Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. on 3 August, 2022
Author: Suresh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6480 of 2022 Applicant :- Aneeta Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State..
The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Case Crime No.101 of 2021, under Sections 323, 308, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Rajapur, District Chitrakoot.
Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Further submission is that initially the impugned FIR has been lodged under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and during course of investigation, on the basis of injury report, the case was converted under Sections 308, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The injury no.1 of injurd Shelu was referred for CT Scan and as per CT Scan, there is no bone injury found on the head of the injured, hence, offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out against the applicants. Further submission is that although three persons were got injured but nobody have got grievous injuries. Further submission is that during investigation, without collecting any credible evidence, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the applicants and the learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance and summoned the applicants. Further submission is that during investigation, the applicants have arrested and have fully cooperated in the investigation. The applicants have no criminal history and they are ready to cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants and has submitted that charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has also been taken against the applicants. In the alleged incident, three persons have got injuries and keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail, hence, the same is liable to be rejected.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of material on record and also taking into consideration the gravity of accusation and there being possibility of their fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicants are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.
Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants is hereby refused.
However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case the applicant nos.2 and 3 appear and surrender before the court below and seek grant of regular bail, their application shall be heard and decided on its own merit and without being influenced by the observation made by this Court in the present case in view of the settled law laid down in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.
It is further directed that since the applicant no.1 is a lady, her prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below, expeditiously, preferably on the same day giving benefit of Section 437 (2) Cr.P.C.
With the aforesaid observations, the present anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.8.2022 Ajeet