Allowed

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2022ABAIL/8789/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Bhagwan Singh in a case involving Sections 498A IPC, 306 IPC, and the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accepting that a case for bail is made out, the court allowed the application subject to furnishing a bond and complying with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed; applicant to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 80,000/- with two sureties and comply with stipulated conditions regarding evidence and court appearance.

Bhagwan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8789 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Bhagwan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 166 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 306 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi 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. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. The prosecution version is that the marriage of daughter of complainant has taken place with the son of applicant in the year 2005 and the alleged incident took place on 20.02.2018. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations that the applicant and co-accused persons have harassed the deceased on account of dowry are thoroughly false. For so many years after the marriage of deceased, there has been no complaint of harassment of the deceased. The applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. It has been stated that co-accused Brijesh Singh, who is husband of the deceased, has already been granted regular bail by the court of Sessions Judge, Varanasi, copy of which is available on record. The investigation is complete and

¶8

charge sheet has already been filed. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the trial and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

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

¶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 principle 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- Bhagwan Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 80,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 1.8.2022 Ashish/Anand

¶21

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.08.03 10:39:53 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Sangeeta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Ji Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Chandra Shekhar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Meenu Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Bahadur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.