Allowed

Smt. Sudesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2022ABAIL/3498/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC for an applicant facing charges under sections 307, 323, 354-Kha, 498A, 506, 324 IPC, and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court noted a compromise and directed bail on a personal bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; applicant to execute personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and comply with conditions regarding police interrogation and non-interference with witnesses.

Smt. Sudesh Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3498 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Sudesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 546 of 2021, under Sections 307, 323, 354Kha, 498A, 506, 324 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr, 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 she has an apprehension that she may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. The applicant is mother-in-law of complainant. The marriage of complainant with son of applicant has taken place on 02.03.2020. The allegations made against the applicant, are thoroughly false. Learned counsel further submitted that now both the parties have compromised the matter and the complainant has started residing with her husband. In this connection, learned counsel has referred the affidavit of complainant, which is on record. The complainant has sustained merely simple injury and no case under Section 307 IPC is made out against the applicant. The role of causing

¶8

injuries to complainant has been attributed to co-accused persons. The husband of complainant has already been granted regular bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.03.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2510 of 2022, wherein it has been observed that both the parties have compromised the matter. The applicant is a lady and she undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and she 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, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶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 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 applicant- Smt. Sudesh in the aforesaid case crime, she will 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 :-

¶14

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

¶15

(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;

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.11.2022 A. Tripathi

¶19

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.11.04 14:44:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Sudesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sudesh 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

Smt. Seema Rani Agarwal Vs State of U.P.

Alam Vs State of U.P.

Satyendra Kumar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ateeq Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Alias Shoyeb Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.