Tahjeeb @ Tahjeeb Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 855 of 2020

Applicant :- Tahjeeb @ Tahjeeb Ahmad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Waseem Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Sri Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Applicant no.1 is the husband, applicant no.2 is the father-inlaw and applicant no.3 is the mother-in-law; allegation against the applicants is that they subjected harassment and torture for demand of dowry; injury report substantiates the allegation.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation and the fact that she has no criminal antecedent, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶10

In the event of arrest of the applicant no.3 - Smt. Munni involved in Case Crime No.320 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 325, 342 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sheeshgarh, District Bareilly, she 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 her 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 applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;

¶12

(ii) 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 office;

¶13

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous

¶14

permission of the Court and if she has passport the same shall be deposited by her 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 applicant.

¶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 applicant.

¶17

The applicant is 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

In respect of applicant no.1 - Tahjeeb @ Tahjeeb Ahmad and applicant no.2 - Rafeeq Ahmad, the anticipatory bail application in the aforesaid case crime number is rejected.

¶19

Order Date :- 29.1.2020 Atul

Tahjeeb @ Tahjeeb Ahmad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tahjeeb @ Tahjeeb Ahmad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ankush Mangal Vs State of U.P.

Ankush Mangal @ Ankush Singal Vs State of U.P.

Sanju Vs State of U.P.

Gyanendra Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Vs State of U.P. and Another