Allowed

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2022ABAIL/7098/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. Despite opposition from the state and allegations of dowry harassment, the judge found that a case for bail was made out without expressing an opinion on the merits of the accusations.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted pending on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties in the like amount upon compliance with specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7098 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Dev,Shikhar Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brahma Kumar Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for 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.128 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 506, 354 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Muzaffarnagar 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 applicant is husband of informant and their marriage has taken place on 20.01.2022. The allegations of dowry demand and harassment of complainant are thoroughly false. It was submitted that in fact the complainant herself has deserted the applicant and she has joined her services as staff nurse in District Shamli and due to that reason the applicant has filed a case under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The entire family of applicant was named in the first information report. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It was submitted that 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,

¶8

the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for complainant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that applicant used to harass the complainant on account of dowry and that she was turned out of matrimonial home.

¶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 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.

¶12

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Manoj Kumar 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 :-

¶14

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

¶15

(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;

¶16

(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 9.11.2022 Neeraj

¶19

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.11 10:20:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar 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

Ateeq Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sudesh Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Alias Shoyeb Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satya Prakash @ Pramod Vs State of U.P.