The Allahabad High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by father-in-law and mother-in-law of a deceased. The court held that despite the applicants' age, having actively participated in the crime demanded a transparent investigation, precluding bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13241 of 2021
Applicant :- Surendri & Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Vikas Srivastava
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.
By means of the present application the applicants, Surendri and Tej Singh are seeking their anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0217 of 2021, u/s 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Babugarh, District Hapur.
From the record, it is evident that the applicants have approached this Court straightaway without their anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Session.
Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of the Court to Clause-7 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (U.P. Act No.4 of 2021), which read 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." After interpreting the aforesaid clause it is clear that the Legislature in its wisdom bestowed two avenues open for the accused. If the accused has chosen to come to the High Court straightaway, then he would not be relegated back to exhaust her remedy before the Court of Session first.
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 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.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present FIR was got lodged by Satendra, brother of deceased, against
husband and his family members with this contention that her in-laws were demanding dowry and they used to harass her physically and mentally very often. Informant along with his younger brother came to the house of deceased for getting her back to her home and they found her dead. Applicants are old aged person, suffering from orthopedic decease. They are of no concern with demand of dowry or cruelty with regard to it. Hence, anticipatory bail has been prayed for.
It is evidence from the record that the applicants are father-inlaw and mother-in-law of the deceased and they have actively participated in the commission of the crime. It is expected from them to look after their family members.
Under the circumstances, the 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.
Thus, giving a panoramic view of the matter the Court is not inclined to exercise its powers in favour of the applicants, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby REJECTED.
Order Date :- 26.7.2021 Nisha
Digitally signed by Justice Rahul Chaturvedi Date: 2021.07.31 15:14:46 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving charges of dowry death and cruelty.
Whether the accused approachable directly to the High Court without exhausting remedy before the Court of Session.
Surendri & Another
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
