Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9918 (ALL)

PRAMILA v. STATE OF U.P.

NABAIL/10296/2026 · 2026-09-30

Rajiv Lochan Shukla

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 10296 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, the Learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.197 of 2026, under Sections 351(3), 352, 109, 115(2) B.N.S., P.S.- Tejibazar, District- Jaunpur, with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends her arrest in the above-mentioned case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is a lady and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The F.I.R. has been lodged with the allegation that the named accused assaulted the injured who is the mother-in-law of the informant. There is no medical examination report of the mother-in-law of the informant on the record. Later, an improvement was made that the informant and her mother-in- law were both assaulted by the accused and an injury report of the informant Sandhya Devi has been prepared which shows four injuries. None of the injuries have been opined to be dangerous to life. Learned counsel has further submitted that there are cross versions and Case Crime No. 198 of 2026 has been registered by the applicant against the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kuldeep Kumar Dube Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pramila .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) injured Sandhya, the informant of the present case and five other named accused. The investigation is pending and the applicant is being pressurised by the police on account of the fact that she is a lady and a homemaker. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and has contended that the applicant is the nominated accused. The injured Sandhya Devi has received a fracture in the right forearm. No indulgence may be granted to her and this application may be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on the record. 6. There appear to be cross versions of the incident. The applicant is a lady. The F.I.R. does not speak of the injured Sandhya Devi receiving any injuries in the occurrence. From the perusal of the bail rejection order, it appears that the injury report of Sandhya Devi alone is on the record and no injury report of Asha is available. On a pointed query made to the Learned A.G.A., he has also not been able to point out any injury report of Asha who has been shown as one of the injured. 7. Taking note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the applicant is a lady, I deem it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail. 8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. 9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant Pramila, she shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court concerned with the NABAIL No. 10296 of 2026 2 following conditions:- i. 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. 11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case. October 1, 2026 Sachin NABAIL No. 10296 of 2026 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad