Allowed

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

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2022ABAIL/6267/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application for two applicants as not pressed. For the third applicant, Smt. Vijaya Gupta, accused under IPC 498A and related sections, the Court observed that a case was made out based on the nature of accusation, lack of antecedents, and credible evidence. The application was allowed with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties and compliance with specific conditions regarding tampering and appearing in court.

Dr. Karna Gupta 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. - 6267 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Dr. Karna Gupta And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Vajpeyi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Bharti

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant, 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. 0111 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 376, 377 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Muzaffar Nagar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶7

At the outset learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press the present application filed on behalf of applicant nos. 1 and 2 and the same may be dismissed as not pressed.

¶8

Accordingly, the instant application filed on behalf of applicant nos. 1 and 2, namely, Dr. Karna Gupta and Dr. Dinesh Gupta is dismissed as not pressed.

¶9

The present application survives only in respect of applicant no. 3, namely, Smt. Vijaya Gupta.

¶10

Insofar as applicant no. 3, namely, Smt. Vijaya Gupta is concerned, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has apprehension that she may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no

¶11

coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. Applicant is mother-in-law of complainant. The marriage of complainant with son of applicant has taken place in the year 2019. The allegations of dowry demand and harassment of complainant made against the applicant are thoroughly false. It was submitted that recently applicant has got her knee operation and she can move only by wheelchair and that there are no specific allegation against the applicant. The husband and father-in-law of complainant have already been granted regular bail. It was further submitted that investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and she would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the trial and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail. It was submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that there are allegations of dowry demand and harassment of complainant against the applicant.

¶13

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.

¶14

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel

¶15

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.

¶16

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant no. 3 Smt. Vijaya Gupta involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on her 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 concerned with the following conditions :-

¶18

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

2.The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

3.The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶22

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/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶24

Order Date :- 17.8.2022 Anand

¶25

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.08.18 17:34:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Karna Gupta 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

Ikrar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Govind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Varun Vs State of U.P.

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

Fakruddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Bhushan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others