Allowed

Surendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2021ABAIL/922/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was allowed. The court held that despite matrimonial allegations involving Sections 498-A IPC and cheque bounce, the applicant is entitled to bail pending the submission of the police report. An order granted bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties, with specific conditions. Investigation was directed to be conclud

What did the court decide?

Bail granted in the event of arrest subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and specific conditions.

Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 922 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Kumar Shukla,Dharmesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Devesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Surendra Kumar, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 0415 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 120-B, 377 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the first informant but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the matter was referred to Mediation Centre vide order dated 03.02.2020 and the applicant had complied with the directions with regards to payment of money before the Mediation Centre and the process of mediation had started but the same has failed. It is argued that the allegations levelled in the First Information Report are false and concocted. The applicant was married to the first informant on 28.04.2016 and from the wedlock one child was born. The First Information Report has been lodged on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is argued that the First Information Report has been lodged against the applicant, father-in-law, mother-in-law and a nand of the first informant levellving totally false and baseless allegations. The present case is a case of no injury as stated in para 16 of the affidavit. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 20 of the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and there are allegations against him. Learned counsel for the State in all fairness has pointed out that although the first informant Smt. Seema was subjected to medical examination but doctor did not find any fresh internal

¶9

injury on her person. It is argued that the anticipatory bail application of the applicant be rejected.

¶10

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the present dispute arose due to a matrimonial discord. The marriage of the applicant with the first informant was solemnized on 28.04.2016. The present case is a case of no injury.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶12

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Surendra Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 0415 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 120-B, 377 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh, he 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 his 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 with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;

¶14

(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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office;

¶15

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶16

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.

¶17

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 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.

¶18

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before

¶19

the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶20

The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.12.2021 M. ARIF

¶22

(Samit Gopal, J.)

Surendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Alka Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Jain Vs State of U.P.

Shivam @ Tempo @ Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Vs State of U.P.

Lav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sonu Pandey @ Avinash Pandey Vs State of U.P.