Allowed

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

Allahabad HC5 May 2021ABAIL/8743/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants in a dowry harassment case involving multiple sections of IPC. The court held that arrest is an exception and not a rule, citing Supreme Court precedents, and ordered release on personal bond with strict conditions to appear for interrogation and not tamper with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Guidance to grant anticipatory bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties subject to specific conditions pending investigation and court report.

Sartaj Chaudhary and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8743 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sartaj Chaudhary And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bal Krishna Pandey 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 COVID19, this case is being heard by way of virtual mode.

¶6

Heard 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 anticipatory bail to the applicants in Case Crime No.019 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 377, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Dibai, District Buland Shahar.

¶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

As per allegations made in the impugned first information report is that the marriage of the opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the applicant no.1 on 07.03.2014 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. In the said marriage, sufficient dowry was given. It is alleged that after the marriage, the opposite party no.2 was harassed by the applicants for demand of additional dowry i.e. one car and 2 1/2 lakh cash. It is further alleged that on 09.12.2018 the applicants abused and assaulted the opposite party no.2, as a result of which, she left her matrimonial house.

¶10

Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case for

¶11

the purpose of harassment on false facts. The impugned first information report is fake, frivolous and concocted since no such incident took place as alleged by the opposite party no.2. The first information report has been lodged delayed and no explanation regarding delay has been given. The applicant no.1 is husband; applicant no.2 is father-in-law; applicant no.3 is mother-in-law and the applicant no.4 is brother-in-law (dever) of the opposite party no.2. Further contention is that the opposite party no.2, from very beginning of marriage, has disputed with her husband for want of separate accommodation from other family members and applicant no.1 refused to fulfil demand of his wife, then opposite party no.2 started ill behaviour with other family members and on 16.11.2018, she left her matrimonial house taking all her stridhan in absence of applicant no.1. Further contention is that the applicant no.1 has filed a case under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right on 11.12.2018 and the same was registered as Matrimonial Case No.1602 of 2018 (Sartaj Chaudhary vs. Smt. Rajani). After receiving of notice, the opposite party no.2 moved an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act in Matrimonial Case No.1602 of 2018 on 28.5.2019, which is still pending in the court below and when no order has been passed, the opposite party no.2 has lodged the impugned first information report with an intention to harass the applicants.

¶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.

¶13

The apprehension of the applicants are not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶14

After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that there is a case registered against the applicants. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend them. 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 his 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

¶15

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 rights 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.

¶16

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and their antecedents and also the second surge in the cases of novel coronavirus and possibility of further surge of the pandemic, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail for limited period in this case considering the exceptions considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶17

In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail till cognizance is taken by the Court on the police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/ concerned Court with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶19

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶20

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶21

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

¶22

(v) 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.

¶23

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶24

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation, if pending, of the present case in accordance with law, expeditiously, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.

¶25

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, if investigation is in progress, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶26

Order Date :- 5.5.2021 Ajeet

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sartaj Chaudhary and 3 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

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

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