Allowed

Krishna Kumar Sharma and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2019BAIL/50046/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to four applicants accused under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307, 376, 511, 354 IPC and the Dowry Prevention Act. The court opined that the FIR appeared to be based on a matrimonial dispute, the injuries were simple, and the applicants had no criminal antecedents, permitting bail conditioned on surrender, no inducement, and no departure from India. The cour

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted conditioned on personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties, availability for interrogation, no inducement, and no departure from India.

Krishna Kumar Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50046 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Sharma And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep Singh Tomar

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Kuldeep Singh Tomar, counsel for opposite party no. 2 learned A.G.A for the State and perused the first information report as well as rejection order.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the opposite party no. 2, who is wife of applicant no. 4 has lodged frivolous F.I.R. against her husband and three other family members. It is stated that admittedly, marriage took place in the year 2010 and out of wedlock six years old son is born. Infact, it is purely matrimonial dispute and F.I.R. has been lodged on account of matrimonial differences and especially due to mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2 as on the alleged date of incident it is alleged by opposite party no. 2 that she was assaulted by the applicants whereas on the contrary defence version is that she has beaten her aged mother-in-law and injury report is on record. The applicants are not required for any custodial interrogation. The matter needs deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should be given effect to. Therefore, the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that infact opposite party no. 2 has been cruelty treated by the applicants and the police has referred the matter to the mediation where the applicants did not come to terms and mediation failed; he has placed injury report of opposite party no. 2.

¶8

I find that injuries of opposite party no. 2 are simple in nature, same is taken on record.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and having no criminal antecedents, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶10

In the event of arrest of the applicants Krishna Kumar Sharma, Smt. Kiran Devi, Atul Kumar Sharma, Sachin Kaushik involved in Case Crime No. 0545 of 2019, u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307, 376, 511, 354 Kha IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahar shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report if any under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions.

¶11

(i) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶12

(ii) the applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement,

¶13

threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶14

(iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶15

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶16

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.

¶17

The applicants are directed to produce a certified copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶18

Let the copy of this order be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to Sessions Judge concerned for it's compliance.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid, the application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Dhirendra/

Krishna Kumar Sharma and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar Sharma and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dineysh Agrawaal D.K. Agrawal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Javed Mehdi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Baba @ Ashok Panth Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manoj Pandey and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Rahman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Angad Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another