Allowed

Smt. Suman and 4 Others v. State of U.P.and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2022ABAIL/696/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Allahabad High Court allowed anticipatory bail application for applicants in a 2004 dowry and cruelty case, directing release on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions including appearance and non-interference.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each, subject to eight specific conditions including cooperation and regular attendance.

Smt. Suman and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.and 4 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 696 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Suman And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Satyam Narayan,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Laxmi Kant Bhatt

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shiv Prakash Tiwari Advocate holding brief of Sri Laxmi Kant Bhatt, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.222 of 2004, under Sections 498-A, 323, 307 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station- Medical, District Meerut with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that admittedly the applicants are the in-laws of the informant. The co-accused persons, Smt. Harpyari @ Shanti Devi and Vikash @ Harishpal, who happens to be mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the victim, have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 7.4.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.1958 of 2022. After investigation, Section 307 IPC has been deleted by the investigating officer and the charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act only. Learned counsel has further stated that there are general allegations against the applicants and they live separately to the main accused person Satish, who happens to be the husband of the victim. The case of the applicants is distinguishable to the case of the husband Satish. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they will cooperate in the trial failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶8

The prayer for anticipatory bail have been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. However, they could not dispute the fact that the case of the applicants is at par with the case of the co-accused persons. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that the applicants are not co-operating in the trial as the case pertains to

¶9

the year 2003.

¶10

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicants are liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶11

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Smt. Suman, Raj Kumar, Smt. Manju, Ajay Kumar and Smt. Renu Verma be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶13

that the applicants shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment especially on the date of examination of any witnesses, framing of charge and the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶14

that 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶15

that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶16

that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶18

that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.

¶21

Order Date :- 10.10.2022 Ravi Kant

¶22

Digitally signed by RAVI KANT Date: 2022.10.11 09:49:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Suman and 4 Others v. State of U.P.and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Suman and 4 Others v. State of U.P.and 4 Others

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

Vishal Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Swaleh Maksood Vs State of U.P and Another

Sajid Husain Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpa Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Akhilesh Dutt Chaturvedi Vs state of U.P.

Brahma Nand Patel Vs State of U.P.