Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 155102 (ALL)

SWATI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. (HOME) GOVT. OF U.P. LKO.

/970/2025 · 2025-08-06

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45754 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 970 of 2025 Applicant :- Swati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. Of U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Singh,Dileep Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant as well as Sri Hans Raj Verma, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and Shri Pankaj Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.60 of 2025 under Sections 191, 115(2), 110, 352 of B.N.S. registered at Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Gonda. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on15.02.2025 against 7 persons, including the applicant and her family members, stating that because of an old animosity regarding a property and some litigation in support thereof, all the accused persons had assaulted the informant and his family members at about 04:30 PM on 15.02.2025. The FIR states that a video of the incident is available with the informant. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application it has been stated that the applicant is 21 years old lady having no criminal history and she has been falsely been implicated in the present case. 6. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and on the basis of instructions, he has submitted that the allegations have been established during investigation and a charge-sheet has been submitted on 20.03.2025. However, he has stated that the charge-sheet does not make any mention of any video of the incident provided by the informant. 7. The learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and he has submitted that four persons have received numerous injuries in the incident and some of which are grievous in nature. He has submitted that the incident occurred to pressurize the informant and his family members to refrain from pursuing the already pending cases and the offence is heinous and serious in nature. 8. However, Shri Verma could not dispute the fact that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the FIR or in any of the statements and the video of the incident mentioned in the FIR could not be provided to the Investigating Officer. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts coupled with the fact that all the offences alleged in the present case are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 10. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court : (i) that the applicant shall make himself/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 him 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 the previous permission of the court. (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. . (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 6.8.2025/-Amit K- Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench