Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 15180 of 2021 Applicant :- Sangita Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yashwant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
2. The instant application is being moved by the applicant invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that she has every reason to believe that she may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime No.0457 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 306 IPC, Police Station-Panki, District-Kanpur Nagar.
3. From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court straightaway without getting her anticipatory bail rejected from the court of sessions.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to Clause-7 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (UP Act No.4 of 2019), which reads thus:
"(7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by the Court of Session."
5. After interpreting the aforesaid clause, it is clear that the Legislature in its own wisdom bestowed two avenues upon the accused with a rider that if the accused has chosen to come to the High Court straightaway, then he would not be relegated back to exhaust his remedy before the Court of Session first. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti and others vs. State of UP and another [2020 (3) ADJ 575], in which the Bench has directed to spell out the extraordinary and special reasons for coming to the High Court. After perusal of those pleadings/reasons in this regard, this Court is satisfied that the reasons mentioned therein are quite convincing to entertain the present anticipatory bail application before this Court itself.
6. Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter-XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc.Anticipatory Bail Application u/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020 (Govind Mishra @ Chhotu vs. State of UP), hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned AGA as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (UP Amendment) is not required.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that at the time of said occurrence of suicide by husband of the applicant, she was not at the place of occurrence, but she was in her parental home. It is also submitted that FIR is delayed and lodged through an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.; the applicant is not responsible for the said suicide of her husband.
8. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that in the suicide-note, deceased has held the applicant responsible for commission of suicide. It is also submitted that applicant was in illicit relationship with co-accused Umakant and the Call Detail Record is also on record.
9. Perused the enclosed copy of suicide note and other relevant document. Taking into account the severity of allegations, this Court feels that in order to have indepth probe into the matter, the Investigating Officer of the case should be given fullest liberty to choose its own course for the transparent investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to exercise its powers in favour of the applicant, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 6.10.2021 LN Tripathi