Allowed

Mohit @ Anuj and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Nov 2022ABAIL/10952/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application allowed for applicants allegedly implicated in dowry harassment, assault, and attempt to murder. Court applied Sushila Aggarwal precedent, noting FIR delay and lack of corroborating injury report. Bail granted subject to standard conditions and no tampering with witnesses or evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on a personal bond and two sureties each.

Mohit @ Anuj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10952 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohit @ Anuj And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Mishra,Anant Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shashank Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in F.I.R. No. 343 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 307, 354, 506 Indian Penal Code and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Islam Nagar, District Budaun, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicants are said to have subjected the victim to cruelty for demand of dowry and are stated to have assaulted her.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize them. Learned counsel has stated that FIR is delayed by about one year and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There are general allegations in the FIR. There is no injury report to corroborate the prosecution story of causing attempt to murder. No offence, whatsoever, has been committed by the applicants. There is no criminal history of the applicants. It is further stated that applicants are co-operating in the investigation and are ready to cooperate in future also. There is no likelihood of the applicants repeating the said offence, if any. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but has not disputed the fact that applicants have no criminal history and the aforesaid submissions of learned

¶10

counsel for the applicants.

¶11

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- (2020) 5 SCC 1 ", the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶12

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed . In the event of arrest, let the accusedapplicants- Mohit @ Anuj, Kallu, Nattho and Anshu be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned/Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶15

that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶16

that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶18

that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.

¶21

Order Date :- 23.11.2022 Shalini

¶22

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.11.25 09:50:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohit @ Anuj and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit @ Anuj 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

Imran Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devmati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Usman Vs State of U.P.

Nand Lal Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Rashmi Rawat (Advocate) Vs State of U.P.

Sakib Vs State of U.P.