Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 177653 (ALL)

GAYATRI v. STATE OF U.P THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. HOME U.P. CIVIL SECTT. LKO. AND ANOTHER

NABAIL/1652/2025 · 2025-11-06

Karunesh Singh Pawar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1652 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Eshan Kumar Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the complainant is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant apprehending her arrest in Case Crime No. 0288 of 2025 under Sections 109, 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S, Police Station Hardi, District Bahraich. 4. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that owing to the the old family dispute, the named accused persons came at the door of the informant and started hurling abuses, hearing it, the complainant and his wife came out and saw that all the three persons were armed and with a common intention, they started beating them. The wife of the complainant suffered fatal injuries on the head. The complainant/informant took his wife to the District Hospital, Bahraich, where she was given the treatment by the doctor. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the parties are family members. The medical examination of the informant shows that the the complainant i.e. Guddu suffered three injuries which were simple in nature and were three days old, one injury was contusion, the second injury was a lacerated wound on right side of the face and the third injury was pain in the whole body and the medical examination of the wife of the complainant i.e. Gudiya shows that she has sustained four injuries, two were of stitched wound and one was abrasion at the left side of skull and fourth one was abradded contusion on the right forearm. He further submits that the applicant is a lady and has a three year old child. She has no criminal antecedents. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Gayatri .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. It is also submitted that the applicant has cooperated during the course of investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the investigation. 7. Learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the application and have submitted that the injuries sustained by the complainant and his wife are grievous in nature, thus the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 8. On due consideration of the facts, the nature of allegations in the F.I.R, the fact that all the injuries suffered by both the injured are simple in nature, there is no specific allegation against the applicant, so also the fact that the applicant is a lady and has no criminal antecedents and she has a minor child aged three years, the fact that the investigation in the case is going on, and in view of the undertaking given on her behalf to cooperate with the investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, subject to his continued cooperation in the investigation. 9. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:- 10. The applicant shall report to the investigating officer within ten days from today. She shall cooperate in the investigation and she will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. 11. The application is allowed. November 6, 2025 DiVYa NABAIL No. 1652 of 2025 2 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench