Allowed

Sant Kumar and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh through Its Principal Secretary Home, Lucknow

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2022ABAIL/405/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by a father-in-law and mother-in-law facing charges under Section 498-A IPC. The court protected their liberty by directing them to remain available for charge, granting bail upon arrest with a bond of Rs. 50,000 each.

What did the court decide?

ANTEICIPATORY BAIL ALLOWED WITH A PERSONAL BOND OF RS. 50,000/- EACH.

Sant Kumar and Another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh through… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 405 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sant Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Its Principal Secretary Home, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Vikram,Imran Ullah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Devesh Kumar Sharma,Sudhir Kumar Agarwal

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

(1) Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.

¶6

(2) Heard Shri Imran Ullah, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A and perused the record.

¶7

(3) This is the second anticipatory bail application. The first anticipatory bail application was rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma,J. (as his lordship then was).

¶8

(4) The instant application is being moved by the applicants, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that they have every reason to believe that they may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime no. 241 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 364 IPC, and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura.

¶9

(5) From the record, it is evident that the applicants have approached this Court after getting their anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Sessions vide order dated 16.12.2021.

¶10

(6) Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P. , hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶11

(7) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have got no criminal antecedents and they have not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced by learned counsel for the applicants on behalf of the applicants that they would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigating agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee away from the course of justice.

¶12

(8) Learned counsel for the applicants have strenuously argued that the applicants have been made target just to besmirch their reputation and belittle them in the public estimate by the informant. Number of arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicants by the informant. Learned counsel for the applicants has also relied upon the judgements in the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273; Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 and Sanaul Haque vs State of U.P. and another, 2008 Cri. LJ 1998, to buttress his/their contentions.

¶13

(9) In this backdrop of legal as well as factual proposition, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law. It is further submitted that applicant no. 1 who is the father-in-law has suffered massive cardiac attack and have undergone angiography. The investigation is going on and the applicant undertakes to cooperate with the investigation.

¶14

(10) On earlier occasion the aforesaid applicants have approached this court by means of Anticipatory Bail Application No. 642 of 2020 vide order dated 17.01.2020, the interest of the applicants were protected by Bench of this Court but under the change circumstances the said anticipatory bail application was stands dismissed.

¶15

(11) Admittedly, first information report has been lodged by Bijendra Singh against Dinesh Kumar husband, Sant Kumar father-in-law and Vidya Devi mother-in-law. Dinesh Kumarhusband was an Officer in Indian Navy and from the allegation it is clear that as per prevailing practice in our society now a days a general and ambiguous role have been attributed to all the named accused persons for alleged misbehaved with the victim Ms. Savita wife of Dinesh Kumar. Learned counsel for the applicants at this juncture has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam &

¶16

Others Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., decided on 08th February, 2022.

¶17

Paragraph no. 18 of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted herein below:-

¶18

"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."

¶19

(1 2 ) The long and short of the case is that the present F.I.R. was registered on 20.02.2015 and the matter was transmitted to the Mediation Center which was ended into success on 05.11.2015 and thereafter, relying upon the mediation report the police has submitted a closer report on 28.01.2016. The husband and wife started leaving peacefully at various places of his posting but it seems that another problem arose between them in the year 2019, wife has moved a Protest Petition on which the further investigation was ordered on 16.10.2019. After committing the aforesaid investigation the police has submitted charge-sheet against both the accused persons under sections 498-A, 323, 506, 364 IPC, and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura.

¶20

(13) Taking into account and the entire change circumstances and the development in the case and guidance from the Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam case, the interest of the applicants namely Sant Kumar and Smt. Vidya Devi is protected till further orders.

¶21

(14) Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicants have got no criminal antecedents but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicants to arrest them. The alleged apprehension on behalf of applicants are imaginary and unfounded one. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have also submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the applicants are not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.

¶22

(15) After the close scrutiny of Section 438 Cr.P.C.(U.P. Act No.4 of 2019) and its relevant clauses, the Court is satisfied that

¶23

the applicants have made out the case for interim order protecting the liberty of applicants in connection with aforesaid case crime pending investigation.

¶24

(16) Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the investigation and subsequent stage of the case, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicants in aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer till further orders/till conclusion of trial as the charge-sheet has already been submitted by the police and now their is feeble chances of tampering of evidence.

¶25

(17) While entertaining the instant anticipatory bail application before this Court, there is no concrete material on record except the canvassed apprehension of the applicants on their arrest and the severity of accusation made in the FIR against them. After being satisfied on the limited material, the interest/liberty of the applicants are being protected by this Court. Since the court has protected the interest of applicants till further orders/or till conclusion of trial, it is expected for the applicants to remain present in the court on the day of fixing the CHARGE.

¶26

(18) Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶27

Order Date :- 22.4.2022 Vikram

¶28

Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH Date: 2022.04.26 17:33:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sant Kumar and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh through Its Principal Secretary Home, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant Kumar and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh through Its Principal Secretary Home, Lucknow

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

Krishna Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Shankar Dayal Tiwari Vs Lalita Devi and Another

Shahrukh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajendra @ Rajendra Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhay Pratap (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others