Allowed

Banwari Lal and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2022ABAIL/12453/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Banwari Lal and others in a dowry death case involving sections 498A, 304B IPC, relying on principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi).

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on personal bond with two sureties each, subject to specified conditions regarding appearance, evidence tampering, and leave to procee

Banwari Lal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12453 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Banwari Lal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sushil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 90 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Awagarh, District- Etah, with the prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicants who are the in-laws of the deceased person, in collusion with the co-accused person Hutendra Kumar are stated to have subjected the deceased person to cruelty and are stated to have later on caused her death owing to the demand of dowry.

¶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. The FIR is delayed by about one year and even the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the first informant after a delay of about four months i.e. on 17.7.2020. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicants were granted the anticipatory bail till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The charge sheet has been filed. There is no possibility of the applicants influencing the trial or tampering with the evidence. It is further stated that applicants are cooperating in the trial 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 unable to dispute the the submissions raised by the

¶10

learned counsel for the applicants and the fact that applicants have no criminal history.

¶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 Banwari Lal, Km. Pooja and Smt. Roopvati be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court 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 default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

¶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

that 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.12.2022

¶22

Shalini

¶23

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.12.15 09:54:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Banwari Lal and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banwari Lal and 2 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

Nagendra Vs State of U.P.

Karan Singh Vs State of U.P.

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

Hariom Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anwar Hussain Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Mahakar and Another Vs State of U.P and Another