Allowed

Ahmad Hasan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2022ABAIL/2372/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed anticipatory bail application in a dowry harassment case. Applicant, husband of complainant, sought bail citing innocence and premature investigation. Court held a case out based on settled principles without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on sureties, subject to conditions of self-availability and non-interference.

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

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2372 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ahmad Hasan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kavindra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rafiqa Anees Khan,Sudhir Kumar (Chandraul)

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the 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. 668 of 2021, under Sections 498-A. 323. 354, 354(Kha), 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Marriage Act, 2019, P.S. Lisadi Gate, District Meerut, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. The applicant is husband of complainant and that their marriage has taken place on 22.10.2017. The allegation of dowry demand and harassment of complainant, made against the applicant, are thoroughly false. Similarly the allegation that applicant has pronounced 'triple talak' is also false. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. Learned counsel further submitted that in

¶8

fact during mediation proceedings before the police, both the parties have compromised the matter, copy of which has been annexed along with supplementary affidavit. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during 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 victim was continuously harassed by the applicant and his family members on account of dowry and that she was turned out from her matrimonial home and that applicant has also pronounced 'triple talak'. Referring to statement of victim, it was submitted that there are serious allegations against the applicant. It was also submitted by learned counsel for informant that as per instructions, the informant has not compromised the matter.

¶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 principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without

¶12

expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Ahmad Hasan in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail 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/Court below concerned with the following conditions :-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(iii) the applicant 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 applicant.

¶19

Order Date :- 24.11.2022 A. Tripathi

¶20

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.11.25 17:37:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ahmad Hasan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmad Hasan 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

Rajeev and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Himanshu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Purnima Keshari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nandram Vs State of U.P.

Sagir Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kulvinder Singh Bhasin Vs State of U.P.