Allowed

Monish v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2022ABAIL/9855/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench allowed an anticipatory bail application filed under S. 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving cruelty, attempted murder, and dowry demands. The court relied on Sushila Aggarwal and granted bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions regarding absence from India and tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9855 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Monish Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Belal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Noor Ahmad, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Mohammad Belal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 252 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 307, 506 IPC, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, Police Station- Jaani, District- Meerut, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant is said to have subjected the first informant to cruelty for a demand of dowy and is said to have attempted to cause her death on 2.7.2022.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. The injury report indicates that the victim has not sustained any kind of injuries at all. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has placed much reliance on the injury report which indicates that there is no sign of injury present at the time of examination and he has also relied on the statement of Dr. Navneet Kumar, wherein he has categorically stated that he has observed no injuries on the body of the first informant. There is no criminal history of the applicant. It is further stated that applicant is co-operating in the investigation and is ready to cooperate in future also. There is no likelihood of the applicant repeating the said offence, if any. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned

¶10

counsel for the applicant. / the fact that applicant has no criminal history.

¶11

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-(2020) 5 SCC 1", the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶12

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest, let the accusedapplicant Monish be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned/Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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 :- 31.10.2022 Shalini

¶22

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.11.01 10:15:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Monish v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monish 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

Devendra and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Ruby Vs State of U.P and Another

Mukesh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sushil @ Ramu Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Krishna Tiwari @ Ashutosh Tiwari Vs State of U.P and Another

Shahnawaz Vs State of U.P.