Allowed

Kunwarpal Singh v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2022ABAIL/1850/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by a person apprehending arrest in a dowry-related case under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court relied on Aman Preet Singh to uphold bail given the lack of prior detention during investigation, imposing standard conditions for trial attendance and cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail by trial court till conclusion of trial on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions.

Kunwarpal Singh Vs State of U.P and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1850 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kunwarpal Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shams Uz Zaman,Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Photo copy of the draft bearing No. 828660 of Rs.24,000/prepared in favour of opposite party no. 2-Smt. Neetu filed today in Court is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No.509 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 307 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sardhana District Meerut.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Further submission is that the applicant is the father-in-law of opposite party no. 2.The dispute between took place between husband and wife. The general allegation of demand of dowry and consequential ill-treatment has been levelled against the applicant.

¶9

In pursuance of order dated 20.4.2022 interim protection was granted to the applicant and the matter was referred for mediation proceedings. Further in compliance of the said order, a draft bearing No. 828660 of Rs.24,000/- has been prepared in favour of opposite party no. 2-Smt. Neetu and the same is handed over today in Court to Mr. Ravi Shankar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manoj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for first informant. The investigation is going on and the applicant is cooperating in the investigation, therefore no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial and he is ready to cooperate with the trial. If the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will never misuse the same. In

¶10

support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4154 .

¶11

Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail to the applicant. Thus, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.

¶13

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh (Supra) , the Court has observed as under:

¶14

"10. Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 Cr.P.C., the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.

¶15

The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

¶16

In Aman Preet Singh (supra) , the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶18

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant (Kunwarpal Singh), be released on bail by the trial Court till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and, two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned with the following conditions:

¶20

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation;

¶22

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and

¶23

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶24

(iii) The applicants are directed to immediately participate in the trial otherwise, benefit of this order shall not be made available to them.

¶25

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

¶26

Order Date :- 28.11.2022 Virendra

¶27

Digitally signed by VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Date: 2022.11.29 14:16:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kunwarpal Singh v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunwarpal Singh 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

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

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vipin Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Shuklawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajkaran Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Budhauliya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others