Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 196161 (ALL)

MUNNIDEVI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ITS PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO.

NABAIL/700/2025 · 2025-10-06

Subhash Vidyarthi

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. - 700 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Iqbal Ahmad, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Satyendra Srivastava, the learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.234 of 2024 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120B of I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Utraula, District- Balrampur. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 02.11.2024 against three named persons, including the applicant and two other persons, stating that a sale deed dated 07.05.2024 was executed in respect of a land belonging to the complainant's son by some imposter in favour of the applicant. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application it has been stated that the applicant is an innocent woman having no criminal history and she has been falsely been implicated in the present case. 6. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the applicant stating that the victim has already filed Regular Suit No.468 of 2024 in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Uttraula, Balrampur for cancellation of the sale deed in question. The applicant has filed her written statement in the suit stating that she came to know about the fraud having been committed against her by the imposter who executed the sale deed after lodging of the FIR; that after coming to know about the correct facts, the applicant has co-operated in cancellation of the mutation order and that the applicant has no concern with the land of the complainant and the sale deed dated 07.05.2024 executed in her favour be cancelled. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Iqbal Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Munnidevi .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on bail on furnishing a 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 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. October 6, 2025 -Amit K- NABAIL No. 700 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench