Allowed

Akhilesh Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2022ABAIL/5493/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a dowry harassment case. The applicant was to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and three sureties upon arrest, subject to standard conditions regarding cooperation and non-interference with witnesses, citing settled principles of law.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted upon furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and complying with standard conditions.

Akhilesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5493 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh,Ratish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Affidavit of applicant no.1 has been filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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.37/2022, under Sections 498A/323/504/506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Banda, District Shahjahanpur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Applicant no.1 and 2 are brother-in-law and applicant no.3 is mother-in-law of complainant. The marriage of complainant with brother of applicant no.1 and 2 has taken place only about two and a half months prior to the alleged incident. The allegation that applicants and co-accused persons have harassed the complainant on account of dowry are, thoroughly false. In fact the complainant has performed love marriage with brother of applicant no.1 and 2, hence, there was no question of dowry demand. The applicants have no criminal antecedents and that applicants undertake to co-operate during investigation and trial

¶9

and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during trial and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

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

¶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 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.

¶13

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicants- Akhilesh Kumar, Ravindra and Rambeti in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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 :-

¶15

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

¶16

(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 him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶17

(iii) the applicants 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 applicants.

¶19

Order Date :- 10.8.2022 Neeraj

¶20

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.08.11 09:50:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akhilesh Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Kumar and 2 Others 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

Mohd. Yusuf and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

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

Dinesh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Siddh Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Kumar Gupta@ Pintu Vs State of U.P. and Another