The High Court considered an application for anticipatory bail in a dowry-related case involving allegations under the IPC and DP Act. The court, noting no credible evidence and previous failed mediation, allowed the bail on bond with conditions.
Application for anticipatory bail allowed on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties subject to specific conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 708 of 2022
Applicant :- Ateeq Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nasira Adil,Mohd Zubair,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinod Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nasira Adil, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.212 of 2021, under Section 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Patwai, District Rampur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
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. According to prosecution version, the marriage of sister of informant was fixed with applicant and engagement ceremony has taken place but later on the applicant and his family members started demanding dowry of Rs.5 lakh and a car and the said marriage was not performed. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the allegations of dowry demand, are thoroughly false. In fact the applicant wanted to see the girl but it was refused. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that there is no credible evidence against applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. 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 would obey all conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for informant submitted that in this case there is no material to show that applicant has apprehension of arrest. Further, earlier this matter was referred to mediation but the applicant did not appear there.
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.
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 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.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the event of arrest of the applicant- Ateeq in the aforesaid case crime, he 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/Court below concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;
(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;
(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.
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.
Order Date :- 4.11.2022 Neeraj
Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.05 14:29:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant has a reasonable apprehension of arrest necessitating anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶10
(2011) 1 SCC 694 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ateeq
State of U.P.
Raj Beer Singh
Neeraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Raj Beer Singh and Neeraj
Parties & counsel
