Allahabad High Court
Seema Beg vs State Of U.P. on 10 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on :-7.7.2025
Delivered on:-10.7.2025
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110752
Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 5298 of 2025
Applicant :- Seema Beg
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sr. Advocate,Zeeshan Mazhar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned AGA apprised the Court that he has received instructions, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be finally, disposed off.
2. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturveid, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Zeeshan Mazhar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manish Goyal, learned AAG assisted by Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 185 of 2024, under Sections 143(4), 143(5) of BNS and 79 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act alongwith 4 and 16 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, Police Station Bhadohi, District Bhadohi, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, till the conclusion of trial.
Brief facts of the case:-
4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 13.9.2024 against applicant and her husband under section 143(4) and 143(5) BNS and Section 79 Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and 4/16 Bonded Labour Act 1976.
5. As per FIR on 9.9.2024 one child Nazia was found dead in the house of the applicant under suspicious circumstances and during inquiry it was revealed that at the residence of applicant and her husband one another child Moni @ Sania also worked as maid servant and thereafter on 10.9.2024 concerned District Magistrate directed the District Probationary Officer and other concerned officials to take action and when pursuant to the order passed by District Magistrate on 10.9.2024 they arrived at the house of the applicant then found that Moni @ Sania aged about 15 years was working in the house and thereafter she was produced before Child Welfare Committee in accordance with law and she was sent to Government Children Home (Girls).
6. It is further mentioned in the FIR that during inquiry the alleged recovered child disclosed that she was working in the house of applicant as maid servant for last two years and with regard to her services payment was being made to her. She also disclosed that sometimes she was also scolded and she was also beaten.
Contention raised on behalf of the applicant:-
7. Learned Senior Counsel appeared on behalf of the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegations applicant has been roped in the present matter alongwith her husband.
8. He further submitted that however from the FIR and statement of the alleged victim recorded during investigation under section 180 BNSS it reflects, sometimes she was scolded and she was also beaten but when she was in children home then in case relates to her custody before the POCSO Court in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2024 on 7.12.2024 her statement was recorded and she categorically stated before the POCSO court that her elder mother (Taiji) has taken her to the house of applicant for the purpose of doing house-hold work and she used to sleep alongwith the daughter of applicant and in the house of applicant she was never compelled to do work.
9. He further submitted that in the above statement victim also stated that in the house of the applicant she also received clothes and food.
10. He further submitted that however victim in above statement also stated that for not doing work, applicant also scolded her but she further stated that she has not been scolded daily. He further submitted that in her statement she also stated that in the house of the applicant she has not been beaten by anyone and applicant herself used to send her to meet her family members.
11. He further submitted that therefore, statement of the victim recorded during investigation under section 180 BNSS is contrary to her statement dated 7.12.2024 recorded by the POCSO court in a proceeding arose with regard to her custody.
12. He further submitted that from the statement of the victim recorded before POCSO court dated 7.12.2024 it could not be reflected that she either forcibly kept in the house of the applicant or forcibly work was taken from her rather from her statement it reflects that she according to her own wish and wish of her family members worked there.
13. He further submitted that even from her statement recorded under section 180 BNSS it also could not be reflected that she either in any compulsion or pressure was doing work as maid servant in the house of the applicant.
14. He further submitted that from the entire material available on record, it could not be reflected that applicant committed the offence of trafficking of person under section 143 BNS.
15. He further submitted that even from the material available on record it could not be reflected that applicant committed any offence either under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act or under the provisions of Bonded Labour Act.
16. He further submitted that in the instant matter after investigation charge sheet has already been filed which has been annexed alongwith the instant anticipatory bail application and however from its perusal it reflects as per Investigating Officer applicant was absconding during investigation but this fact is totally false.
17. He further submitted that applicant is the wife of co-accused Zahid Jamal Beg who is a MLA and she belongs to respected family and she neither absconded nor tried to evade her arrest.
18. He further submitted that as charge sheet in the present matter has already been submitted, therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary.
19. He further submitted that considering the general practice adopted by the Courts now-a-days, applicant is having apprehension that if she will appear before the court concerned then she will be sent to jail.
20. He further submitted that after submission of the charge sheet summons have been issued to applicant and till date no warrant has been issued against her.
21. He further submitted that applicant has also been made accused alongwith her husband in one another case which relates to offence under section 108 BNS as in her home one child namely Nazia was found dead who was also her maid servant but in that case after considering entire facts of the case in detail, applicant has already been released on anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been annexed at page-133 of the paper book.
22. He further submitted that from perusal of the order dated 28.5.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case relates to offence u/s 108 BNS it reflects that while granting anticipatory bail to the applicant co-ordinate Bench also considered the fact that during investigation coercive measures were taken against the applicant and after considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Srikant Upadhyay and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 and Asha Dubey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh passed in Crl. Appeal No. 4564 of 2024, co-ordinate bench enlarged the applicant on anticipatory bail.
23. He further submitted that as above case related to offence u/s 108 BNS, therefore, above case was more serious than present matter and therefore, applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in present case too.
24. He further submitted that the husband of the applicant belongs to Samajwadi Party and he is a MLA, therefore, only due to political vendeta, applicant has been roped in the present matter alongwith her husband and FIR of the present case has been lodged against the applicant only with intention to harass her and ruin her social image.
25. He further submitted that applicant is lady and apart from the present case and above mentioned case relates to offence under section 108 BNS, she is not having any other criminal history to her credit.
26. He further submitted that therefore, considering above facts, applicant should be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the present matter.
Submission advanced on behalf of the State:-
27. Per contra, learned AAG vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits applicant is the wife of a very influential person and she alongwith her husband misused the position and they took the house-hold work from victim -Moni and Nazia (who has committed suicide) who were children.
28. He further submitted that from the FIR and the statement of the victim recorded under section 180 BNSS it is apparent that she was being tortured and harassed in the house of the applicant and very often, she was also beaten and therefore, it cannot be said that applicant did not commit any offence under section 143 BNS.
29. He further submitted that the statement of the victim recorded by the POCSO court cannot be considered in the present case as that statement was recorded in entirely different proceeding arising from the custody of the victim and therefore, no benefit can be extended to the applicant on the basis of the statement of victim recorded before the POCSO court.
30. It is further submitted that even from the charge sheet it reflects that during investigation applicant did not co-operate with the investigation and she was absconding.
31. He next submitted that even during investigation due to the abscondance of the applicant process under section 84 and 85 BNSS have been issued against the applicant on 22.10.2024 and 12.11.2024 respectively and therefore, applicant should not be released on anticipatory bail. He placed reliance on the judgement passed by the Apex Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay (supra) and Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Aditya Sarda (2025)SCC OnLine SC 764 .
32. He further submitted that even as per Article 23 of the Constitution of India trafficking in human beings and forced labour is completely prohibited and any contravention of Article 23 of the Constitution of India shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.
33. Learned AAG however could not dispute the fact that applicant was also made accused in one another case relates to offence u/s 108 BNS with regard to the alleged suicide committed by another maid servant of applicant who was also child and in that case after considering entire facts of the case in detail co-ordinate Bench of this Court enlarged the applicant on anticipatory bail and at the time of enlarging her on anticipatory bail co-ordinate Bench of this Court also considered the fact that during investigation coercive measures were taken against her.
34. He further could not dispute the fact that after submission of the charge sheet summons have been issued against the applicant and till date no warrant has been issued against the applicant.
35. Learned AAG further could not dispute the fact that applicant is lady and apart from the present case and above mentioned case relates to offence under section 108 BNS she is not having other criminal history and she is wife of co-accused Zahid Jamal Beg who is member of Samajwadi Party and is the Member of Legislative Assembly.
Conclusion
36. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record of the case.
37. FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and her husband i.e. co-accused Zahid Jamal Beg who is MLA and is member of Samajwadi Party and as per allegation applicant and her husband committed the offences of trafficking of person and also committed offences under the provisions of Bonded Labours Act and Juvenile Justice Act.
38. Record further suggests that during investigation when the statement of the victim was recorded under section 180 BNSS then she stated that she was scolded in the house of the applicant and she was also beaten but the same victim in her statement recorded before the POCSO court although in different proceeding i.e proceeding arose with regard to her custody stated that she was never beaten in the house of the applicant and from her statement recorded before the POCSO court it could not be reflected that she was being tortured in the house of the applicant and her statement recorded under section 180 BNSS in the present matter, prima facie, appears to be contrary to her statement recorded before the POCSO court and from her statement recorded before the POCSO court, prima facie offence under section 143 BNS and offences under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act and Bonded Labour Act are not made out against the applicant.
39. Further, no complaint has ever been made by any family members of the victim either against the applicant or her husband.
40. Further, investigation of the case has already been concluded and charge sheet has been filed. Considering this fact the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that as charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of any custodial interrogation of the applicant, cannot be ruled out.
41. Further, considering the general practice adopted by the the courts concerned now-a-days apprehension of arrest raised by the applicant cannot be ruled out too.
42. Further, however, from the charge sheet it reflects during investigation as per Investigating Officer applicant was absconding and from the record it also reflects that during investigation process under sections 84 and 85 BNSS have also been issued against her and Apex Court in case of Srikant Upadhyay and others (supra) also observed that if process under sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. is issued against an accused then generally he/her should not be released on anticipatory bail but from the judgment it also reflects that in the interest of justice, the anticipatory bail application of an accused can be considered even after issuance of process under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases. Therefore, the judgement of the Apex Court passed in the case of Srikant Upadhyay (supra) does not create complete bar in considering the anticipatory bail application of an accused even if against him coercive measures have been taken.
43. Further, however, in case of Serious Fraud Investigation (supra) on which reliance was placed by learned AAG the apex Court after relying the observation made in case of Srikant Upadhyay (supra) also observed that if process under section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued then an accused should not be released on anticipatory bail but from perusal of the judgement passed by the Apex Court in the case of Serious Fraud Investigation Officer (supra) it reflects, the facts of that case is entirely different from the facts of present case as that case relates to economic offences and Apex Court in that case also observed that economic offences constitute a class apart, as they have deep rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds, and therefore, such offences need to be viewed seriously.
44. Further Apex Court in case of Asha Dubey (supra) had an occasion to consider the anticipatory bail of an accused even after issuance of the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. and after considering entire facts Apex Court observed that there can be no total embargo in considering the anticipatory bail even if process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued.
45. Further, record also suggests that alongwith the present matter applicant has also been made accused in one another case relates to offence under section 108 BNS with regard to the alleged suicide committed by another maid servant of the applicant who was also child and in that case also coercive measures were taken against her during investigation but after considering entire facts in detail co-ordinate Bench of this Court considered the anticipatory bail of the applicant in that case and enlarged her on anticipatory bail. Therefore, from this angle too instant anticipatory bail application of the applicant should not be withheld under the premise that coercive measures have been taken against her during investigation.
46. Further, after submission of the charge sheet against the applicant in the present matter till date no coercive measures have been taken against the applicant and till date only summons are being issued.
47. Further, applicant is lady and apart from the present case and above mentioned case relates to offence under section 108 BNS she is not having any other criminal history.
48. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in this case, till conclusion of trial.
49. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
50. In the event of arrest of the applicant -Seema Beg, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-
i. 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
ii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;
iii. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
v. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
51. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.
52. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory 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.
Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Ankita