SMT. ANJANA DEVI @ ANJANI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER
ABAIL/411/2025 · 2025-04-21
Manish Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 134331 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 134331 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22218 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 411 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Anjana Devi @ Anjani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1. 2. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite party no.2 stand dispensed with. 3. First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime no.901 of 2002, under Section 326, 504 I.P.C., P.S.Gosaiganj, District Sultanpur. 4. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 23.11.2002 when applicant allegedly entered into an altercation with wife of informant and is said to have bitten off her left ear. 5. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against her and that even otherwise with Section 326 I.P.C. having been imposed against applicant, teeth bite would not come within the scope therein since it does not constitute any lethal weapon. It is submitted that applicant cooperated during course of investigation whereafter charge sheet was filed and although bailable warrant is said to have been issued in year 2012, applicant did not have any information with regard to same and came to know about it only on 20.12.2024 when police team came to her house informing her about the case due to which apprehension of arrest arose. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed anticipatory bail with submission that bailable warrant against applicant has been issued way back almost ten years ago but admits that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that the only allegation levelled against applicant is of having caused injury due to teeth bite. In paragraph 19 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been indicated that applicant became aware of bailable warrant only on 20.12.2024. It is admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.
Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNNS. 8. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant Smt. Anjana Devi @ Anjani shall be released on anticipatory bail in aforesaid Case Crime number on his/her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) 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 tamper with the evidence; (ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed. 9. It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. 10. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench