Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 266 (ALL)

Indu Devi v. State of U. P.

2025-02-11

SAMIT GOPAL

body2025
JUDGMENT : Samit Gopal, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Juned Alam, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the record. 3. The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Indu Devi, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest during trial in Special Session No. 73 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 279 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Barhaj, District Deoria during trial. 4. Prior notice of this anticipatory bail application was served in the office of the learned Government Advocate, High Court, Allahabad and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020 - Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P. this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned State counsel as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required since learned counsel for the State informs the Court that he has received the required instructions in the matter. 5. This is a second anticipatory bail application. The first anticipatory bail application on behalf of the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 4.10.2024 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C.No.6664 of 2024 (Indu Devi Vs. State of U.P.). 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant has been summoned under Sections 363, 366 IPC. The investigation has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted in the matter against the applicant and other co-accused.It is submitted that the applicant has been implicated because she is mother of co-accused Arjun. It is further submitted that the victim is a major girl as she was opined for about 18 years by the CMO concerned in its report dated 29.11.2016. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 37 of the affidavit. It is further submitted that the applicant and three other co-accused have filed Criminal Misc. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 37 of the affidavit. It is further submitted that the applicant and three other co-accused have filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.5380 of 2017 for quashing of the FIR in which an order of no coercive action was passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 11.4.2017, copy of the said order is annexed as annexure no.6 to the affidavit filed in support of anticipatory bail application. It is further submitted that co-accused Mridula Dubey @ Sunita has been granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial by order dated 27.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.6903 of 2024 (Mridula Dubey @ Sunita Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the said order produced by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the mother of co- accused Arjun. Co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. The victim is a major girl as per medical report of CMO concerned. Charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. 9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case. 10. In the event of arrest of the applicant Indu Devi, involved in the aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail till period 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 appear before the court concerned within a period of two weeks from today and file certified copy of this order for its compliance. (ii) the applicant shall make herself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned. (iii) 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. (ii) the applicant shall make herself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned. (iii) 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. (iv) 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. 11. In case, the applicant does not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith. 12. Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same. 13. The court concerned shall not be prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 14. The anticipatory bail application is disposed of.