Allowed

Mudit Saxena v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2022ABAIL/4883/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application under S. 438 Cr.P.C. filed by a man accused of dowry-related offences and assault. The single judge held that no credible case was made out and granted bail subject to personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each, to remain valid till submission of police report.

Mudit Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4883 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mudit Saxena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hemendra Pratap Singh,Anshu 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. 165 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sasni Gate, District Aligarh, 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. The first information report of this case was lodged by the informant against applicant and five named co-accused persons on 15.04.2022 alleging that the applicant has physically exploited her for four years on pretext that he would marry her and that later on he started making demand of Rs. 15 lakhs and a car to marry with informant. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations made by the informant are thoroughly false. The victim is 22 years old lady, whereas the applicant is aged about 20 years. For period of four years, the informant did not make any complaint. It was submitted that in fact a proposal was made from the side of informant for her marriage with applicant but as applicant has refused for the same, and that first information report has been

¶8

lodged due to that reason. Referring to statement of informant, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and other facts of the matter, it was submitted that no case is made out against the 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 will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the 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 applicants 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 Mudit Saxena involved in the aforesaid case, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal

¶14

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

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶20

Order Date :- 14.11.2022 A. Tripathi

¶21

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.11.15 12:34:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mudit Saxena v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mudit Saxena 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. Savita Devi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Sachin Vs State of Up Though Principal Secretary U.P.

Smt. Kusma Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Khalid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raman Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others