Allowed

Smt. Ranjana Umar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 May 2022ABAIL/2812/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court No. 72 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad entertained an application for anticipatory bail filed by an in-law accused in a dowry and cruelty case. The High Court referred to the Apex Court decision in Sushila Aggarwal and granted anticipatory bail subject to furnishing a bond and specific conditions, such as appearing for interrogation and not influencing witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Applicants are enlarged on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/ and two sureties of like amount.

Smt. Ranjana Umar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2812 of 2022 Applicant :- Smt. Ranjana Umar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yadavendra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shyam Dhar Gupta

¶3

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶4

Heard Yadavendra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶5

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicants, namely, Smt. Ranjana Umar and Pradeep Kumar Umar in Case Crime No. 182 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 498-A, 495, 354A, 308, 406, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3, 4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Kotwali Katra, District - Mirzapur after rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the applicants by Sessions Judge, Mirzapur vide order dated 22.12.2021.

¶6

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant no.1 is the mother-in-law and the applicant no.2 is father-in-law of the first informant. Marriage of the first informant was solemnized with the son of applicant namely Himanshu Kumar Umar on 6.7.2021. On 9.7.2021, 12.7.2021 and 17.9.2021, 14.10.2021 and 27.10.2021, various allegations regarding cruelty, harassment and additional demand of dowry have been levelled against the applicants as well as other named accused persons. It is further submitted that on 21.12.2021, on the abetment of the first informant, the husband of the first informant committed suicide. It is further submitted that only general allegation of demand of dowry has been made against the applicants.

¶7

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶8

It is settled position of law that the anticipatory bail being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely roped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law

¶10

laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98 , ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

¶11

In case of arrest, the applicants, Smt. Ranjana Umar and Pradeep Kumar Umar are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in above case crime number till the conclusion of trial, on their furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties each of like amount before the Station House Officer of Police Station/Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required, if investigation is in progress;

¶13

(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 such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶14

(iii) The applicants shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned/Court concerned;

¶15

(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked

¶16

(v) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶17

The Investigating Officer will continue with the investigation, if it is in progress and will not be affected by this order.

¶18

A copy of this order shall also be produced before the S.P/S.S.P concerned by the applicants, within a week, if the investigation is still in progress, who shall ensure compliance of this order.

¶19

With the aforesaid directions, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.5.2022

¶21

¶22

Digitally signed by HEMANT RANJAN Date: 2022.05.23 17:55:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Ranjana Umar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ranjana Umar and Another 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

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Maishar @ Ramesh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Nisha @ Nesha Vs State of U.P.

Anubhav Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Adil and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamil Aziz and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another