Allowed

Mohd Javed and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 May 2021ABAIL/6679/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants in a case registered under sections relating to dowry harassment and cruelty, citing the impossibility of predicting arrest dates and importance of restricting custodial interrogation. The bail was granted subject to standard conditions including furnishing sureties and adhering to the personal bond terms outlined in the Sushila Aggarwal judgme

What did the court decide?

The applicants were directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail by releasing them in the event of arrest on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each.

Mohd Javed and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6679 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd Javed And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mukhtar Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

As per Resolution dated 07.04.2021 of the Committee of this Court for the purpose of taking preventive and remedial measures and for combating the impending threat of Covid-19, this case is being heard by way of virtual mode.

¶6

Heard Mr. Mukhtar Alam, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State through video conferencing.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicants in Case Crime No. 0030 of 2021, under Sections- 498-A, 323 I.P.C., Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and 3/4 the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage Act, 2019), Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Bijnor.

¶8

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.

¶9

The allegation made in the F.I.R. is that the marriage of the first informant was solemnized with the applicant No. 1-Mohd Javed about six and a half year ago. In the said marriage sufficient dowry was given but the applicants were harrassing the first informant because of dowry, motorcycle and 1 lakh cash. It has been further alleged that on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand, the applicant No. 1 pronounced Talak-Talak-Talak three times.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that absolutely false allegations have been made in the F.I.R. He further submits that the alleged incident was lastly occurred on 27.12.2020 at about 3.00 P.M. at the parental home of the first informant and regarding the said incident the informant lodged

¶11

the first first information report at police station Kotwali Dehat District Bijnor on 06.02.2021 which shows that F.I.R. has been lodged after a thought. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is no medical examination report in support of the allegation made in the first information report in fact the present case is a no injury case.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶13

After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that there is a case registered against the applicant. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend her. After the lodging of F.I.R, the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an F.I.R has been lodged. The courts have repeatedly held that arrest should be the last option for the police and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative or her custodial interrogation is required. Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349 ,the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60 percent of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2 percent of expenditure of the jails. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the arrest of an accused should be made.

¶14

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant and also the second surge in the cases of novel coronavirus and possibility of further surge of the pandemic, she is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail 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 .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

In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime 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/ Investigating Officer concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

The applicants shall, at the time of execution of the bond, furnish her address and mobile number and shall not change the residence till the conclusion of investigation/ trial without informing the Investigating Officer of the police/ the Court concerned of change of address and the reasons for the same before changing the same.

¶17

The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial/ investigation by police without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶18

The applicants shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Investigating Officer of the police;

¶19

The applicants shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer till the investigation is completed. In case they have no passport, they will file her affidavit before the Court/ Investigating Officer concerned in this regard.

¶20

That 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;

¶21

The applicants shall maintain law and order.

¶22

The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶23

In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail, the 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 and the Government Advocate/informant/complainant can file bail cancellation application.

¶24

The applicants 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 sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

Order Date :- 5.5.2021 SY

Mohd Javed and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Javed and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

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

Kashi Nath Maurya @ Kashi Prasad Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rama Nand 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chakresh Pachauri Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sorib @ Bilal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Narendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sartaj Chaudhary and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another