Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Allahabad High Court
Smt Shabana vs State Of U.P. on 29 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:36546
Court No. – 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. – 958 of 2024
Applicant :- Smt Shabana
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mukhtar Alam,Yawar Mukhtar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinod Singh
Hon’ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Sri Jhamman Ram, learned A.G.A.-I apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be finally, disposed off.
2. Heard Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned counsel for the applicant; Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 239 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 313, 120B, 506 IPC, Police Station Dilari, District Moradabad, with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail, till the conclusion of trial.
4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 11.8.2021 against the applicant, her husband and son i.e. father in law and husband of the informant and according to the FIR, marriage of the informant was performed with the son of the applicant on 31.3.2020 and after marriage on 22.6.2020 her father in law committed rape upon her and it is further mentioned in the FIR that informant was pregnant and with the connivance of other co-accused, applicant provided her intoxicated milk and due to its consumption, informant fell ill and on 28.6.2020, husband and father in law of the informant forcibly caused her miscarriage in a clinic situated in District Moradabad.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is mother in law of the informant and on the basis of false allegation, only due to matrimonial dispute, she has been made accused in the present matter after more than a year.
6. He further submitted that as per allegation, applicant provided intoxicated milk to the informant i.e. her daughter in law and after consumption of the same, she felt ill and thereafter, her miscarriage was caused but the allegation of miscarriage is of dated 28.6.2020 and FIR of the present case was lodged on 11.8.2021 i.e. after about more than a year.
7. He further submitted that during investigation, allegation with regard to the offence under section 313 I.P.C. was found false and charge sheet against the applicant was submitted only under sections 498A and 506 IPC but court concerned directed further investigation and when accused persons challenged the order passed by the court concerned before this Court then this Court however set aside the order passed by the court concerned with a direction to pass fresh order but in the meantime, by the order of the Higher Authorities further investigation was started under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and after further investigation, charge sheet against the applicant was filed also for offence under sections 313 and 120B IPC.
8. He further submitted that even from the charge sheet which was subsequently filed it appears that with the aid of section 120 B IPC, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.
9. He further submitted that there is neither any direct evidence nor any indirect evidence on record against the applicant which can show that applicant ever involved in the alleged miscarriage of her daughter in law.
10. He further submitted that during investigation, applicant was not arrested and she is lady, aged about 60 years. He further submitted that applicant is having apprehension that if she will appear before the court concerned then she will definitely be sent to jail.
11. He further submitted that apart from the present case, applicant is not having any other criminal antecedents to her credit.
12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant however opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
13. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record of the case.
14. Applicant is mother in law of the informant and there is allegation against her that she provided intoxicated milk to her daughter in law i.e. informant and thereafter she felt ill and subsequently, her miscarriage was caused by her husband and father in law but it appears that the alleged miscarriage of the informant was caused on 28.6.2020 and FIR of the present case was lodged in the month of September, 2021 i.e. after more than a year.
15. Further, after investigation charge sheet against the applicant was submitted only for the offence under section 498A and 506 IPC but it appears that thereafter further investigation was conducted and after further investigation supplementary charge sheet was filed against the applicant also for offence under sections 313 and 120 B IPC but from the perusal of the record, it reflects that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record on the basis of which at this stage it can infer that applicant is the person who caused miscarriage of her daughter in law i.e. informant.
16. Further, applicant is a lady, she is not having any previous criminal history to her credit and she is aged about 60 years.
17. Further during investigation applicant was not arrested and now charge sheet has been filed, therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary.
18. Further, apprehension of arrest raised by the applicant cannot be ruled out.
19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, and observation made by Apex Court in the case of [Aman Preet Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 13 Supreme Court Cases 764] in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in this case, till conclusion of trial.
20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
21. In the event of arrest of the applicant-Smt. Shabana, 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 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 her 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 previous permission of the court;
iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
22. 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.
23. 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 her independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 29.2.2024
Ankita
