Allowed

Lucky Trisholiya and 5 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC31 Aug 2022ABAIL/12992/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving alleged dowry harassment. The court held that a case for bail was made out based on the nature of accusation and assurances to cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to Lucky Trisholiya and five others on execution of personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties each and compliance with specified conditions.

Lucky Trisholiya and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12992 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Lucky Trisholiya And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Mohan Singh,Vivek Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shikher Trivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 0344 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 377 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur City with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. It has further been submitted that applicants have no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicants so far. Applicant no. 1 is husband of complainant and remaining applicants are family members of applicant no. 1. The marriage of applicant no. 1 with complainant has taken place in January, 2019. It was submitted that the allegations of dowry demand and harassment of complainant made against the applicants are thoroughly false. Only general allegations have been levelled against the applicants. The complainant has not sustained any injury. Earlier the matter was referred to mediation but the complainant did not appear and cooperate in the mediation proceedings. Applicants were granted interim anticipatory bail by order dated 13.08.2021 and they have never misused the

¶8

liberty of interim anticipatory bail. The applicants undertake to co-operate during investigation and trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that complainant has appeared in mediation proceedings but matter could not be reconciled.

¶10

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicants- Lucky Trisholiya, Ganesh Prasad Trisholiya, Neelam, Swati, Sneha and Saurabh involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.

¶14

50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶15

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

¶16

(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 him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶17

(iii) the applicants would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶19

Order Date :- 31.8.2022 Anand

¶20

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.09.01 17:38:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lucky Trisholiya and 5 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lucky Trisholiya and 5 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

Javed Khan Vs State of U.P.

Uma Shanker Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Madhu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dileep Diwakar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nizam Alam Vs State of U.P. and Another