Allowed

Sunil Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2020ABAIL/2825/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to Sunil Kumar in a dowry case. Citing the Adil judgment, the Court held that a second application is maintainable without expressing an opinion on merits, subject to future contingencies and standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond with sureties, requiring future compliance and surrender of passport.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Up and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2825 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vikas Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ravi Pandey holding brief of Shri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA, through Video Conferencing.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sunil Kumar, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 386 of 2019, under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationDibai, District- Bulandshahar, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the ofÏce 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 Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶8

This is the second anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶9

Initially applicant was implicated for the offences under sections 498-A,323,376,511,307, 406,506,328 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Now charge sheet has been submitted only under section 498-A I.P.C. and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicant, who is husband of the first informant. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the allegations in the First Information Report have not been found correct by the investigating

¶10

ofÏcer.The applicant only stands implicated under section 498-A I.P.C. and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Both the sections are triable by the Magistrate.On account of matrimonial dispute he has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant has definite apprehension of his arrest by the police.

¶11

Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed prayer of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that allegations against the applicant are serious and earlier he was denied anticipatory bail by this court.Now he has filed second anticipatory bail application which is not maintainable.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶13

In view of the judgement of this Court in Adil Vs. State of U.P., in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under section 438 Cr.p.c. No. 8285 of 2020 , the second anticipatory bail is maintainable.

¶14

Hence the applicant is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and his antecedents as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and order dated 22.05.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.2609 of 2020. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶15

Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

The applicant shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶17

The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

¶18

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 ofÏcer;

¶19

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶20

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶21

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶22

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad.

¶23

The concerned Court/Authority/OfÏcial shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶24

Order Date :- 8.12.2020 Atul kr. sri.

¶25

Digitally signed by JUSTICE SIDDHARTH Date: 2020.12.08 17:40:32 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunil Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Nadim Vs State of U.P.

Km Laxmi Kushwah Vs State of U.P.

Jagdish Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mujibuddin Vs State of U.P.

Mintu Vs State of U.P.

Nishant Nigam Vs State of U.P.