Allowed

Shashi Maddheashiya and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2021ABAIL/13067/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An anticipatory bail application was filed by three applicants in a case involving cheating and criminal breach of trust arising from a matrimonial dispute. The court granted bail pending the filing of a chargesheet, citing the matrimonial nature of the offense and lack of an FIR from the first husband.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to the applicants till the filing of a chargesheet, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties each.

Shashi Maddheashiya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13067 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Shashi Maddheashiya And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Pandey,Rajesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Vikram Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants,learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This is an application for the anticipatory bail given by the applicants Shashi Maddheashiya, Hira Lal Maddheashiya and Rajat in Case Crime No. 49 of 2021, under Sections 420, 495, 496, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Hapurnagar, District Hapur.

¶7

The FIR was lodged against the applicants and one unknown person by the informant Ajay Garg with the allegation that applicant no.1 Shashi Maddheashiya has already married and concealing the fact of marriage she again got marriage herself with the son of the informant.

¶8

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the divorce petition was filed by the applicant no.1 against one Sudhir Kumar for claiming relief of divorce and judgment of the learned Principle Family Court has been annexed by filing of supplementary affidavit, which has been taken on record, that divorce has been granted to the applicant no.1 vide judgment dated 07.01.2021. As such, it has been submitted that the basis for the FIR does not exist and moreover, if there is any other grievance that should have been raised by the son of the informant. It has been further submitted that the matter pertains to matrimonial and the applicants have been unnecessarily implicated in this case. In view of the fact that no case has been filed in respect of matrimonial cause by the husband of applicant no.1. It is further submitted that applicants have no criminal history and applicants are prepared to furnish sureties and bonds, there is no possibility of their either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence, therefore, applicants are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and have submitted

¶10

that prior to obtaining a divorce petition, the applicant no.1 solemnized marriage with the son of the informant.

¶11

Considered the submissions of both the sides, taking into consideration over all facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that no FIR as such has been lodged by the husband of the applicant no.1 and the case pertains to matrimonial cause, therefore, I find it to be a fit case in which anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicants. Hence the anticipatory bail application is allowed till the filing of chargesheet.

¶12

In the event of arrest of the applicants Shashi Maddheashiya, Hira Lal Maddheashiya and Rajat , involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer /C.J.M./ Court of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

1)The applicants shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

2)The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶15

3)The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶16

4)In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officers shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶17

In case of filing of charge-sheet the applicants shall appear before the court concerned for suitable orders according to section 438(3) Cr.P.C. and other condition which may be imposed by the Magistrate or the court concerned.

¶18

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad and the concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶19

The applicants are directed to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today.

¶20

Accordingly the anticipatory bail application is finally disposed off.

¶21

Order Date :- 20.9.2021 Mini

Shashi Maddheashiya and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi Maddheashiya and 2 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

Brijendra Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sarla and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.and Another

Salman Khan Vs State of U.P.

Durgawati Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others