Allowed

Rajeev Jain v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2022ABAIL/4381/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the court granted bail to the applicant, Rajeev Jain, accused of dowry harassment and related offences. The applicant requested protection against arrest pending investigation. The court evaluated the nature of accusations and granted bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with furnishing of personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each, subject to conditions of cooperation, availability, and no inducement of witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4381 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rajeev Jain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhishm Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sujan Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit on behalf of the complainant, filed in Court today, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 0031 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 494, 120B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Chhatta, District Agra with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

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. Applicant is husband of complainant and their marriage has taken place in the year 2012. The allegations that applicant and his family members have harassed the complainant on account of dowry are thoroughly false. The entire family of applicant was named in the FIR. It was submitted that since 2015 complainant is residing at her parental home and that she has lodged the FIR of this case on 17.02.2022. Only general allegations of dowry demand and harassment of complainant have been made against

¶9

the accused persons including applicant. 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 with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that earlier applicant has filed a writ petition before this Court for quashing of FIR but in respect of applicant the said petition was dismissed and applicant was not granted any interim protection. Applicant is husband of complainant and he has even remarried without granting divorce and that he has again committed similar type of offences.

¶11

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.

¶12

In the instant case, considering the settled principle 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.

¶13

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Rajeev Jain involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 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 :- 18.8.2022 Anand

¶20

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.08.18 17:30:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajeev Jain v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Jain 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

Smt. Jyoti and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Fakruddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Karna Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Majid Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Priyanka Vs State of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw. and Another

Rajesh Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another