Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 136868 (ALL)

MRTTIKA @ BHALU @ MINTIKA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. THE PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND ANOTHER

NABAIL/370/2025 · 2025-04-29

Manish Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24274 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 370 of 2025 Applicant :- Mrttika @ Bhalu @ Mintika Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Kumar Shrivastav,Ruchi Tripathi 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 State while power on behalf of complainant has been filed by Mr. Ashok Kumar Advocate, which is taken on record. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is also taken on record. 3. This first anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 71 of 2025 under Sections 190, 191 (2), 191 (3), 109 (1), 115 (2), 352, 351 (3), 118 (1) BNS, Police Station Mitauli, District Lakhimpur Kheri. 4. As per contents of First Information Report, the incident is said to have taken place on 11.03.2025 at about 07:00 AM in which the applicant alongwith co-accused is said to have attacked the informant and his family members while inflicting serious injuries upon them. 5. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against her. Learned counsel has adverted the contents of FIR and statement of injured to indicate that only general role of attacking the injured and his family members have been attributed to the applicant. He has also adverted to injury reports of three persons to indicate that only simple nature of injuries were found. It is submitted that investigation is still ongoing in the matter and the applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 6. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed anticipatory bail application with the submission that injuries suffered are serious in nature with one of the injured having lost his voice in the attack. Learned AGA, however, admits that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, it appears that from the allegations levelled in the FIR as well as statements of injured by only role of accompanying the co-accused and inflicting injuries has been cast upon applicant. The nature of injuries also appear to be simple. The applicant admittedly does not have any previous criminal history. The aspect of altercation having occurred on the spur of moment would be subject matter of trial as per evidence. 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 Mrttika @ Bhalu @ Mintika 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) that the applicant(s) shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant(s) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant(s) shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant(s) shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant(s) shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant(s) shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions, benefit of this order would not be available to applicant(s). 9. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench