Allowed

Shahnawaz v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2022ABAIL/9856/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Court granted anticipatory bail to Shahnawaz in a case alleging offences under IPC Sections 498A, 376, 323, 377, 511, 504, 506 and the D.P. Act/Muslim Women Protection Act. The applicant alleged false implication. The Court allowed the prayer subject to conditions regarding cooperation, inducement, and travel.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, cooperation in investigation, no inducement, and no travel without permission.

Shahnawaz Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9856 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shahnawaz Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ali Imam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the records.

¶6

The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Case Crime No.- 75 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 376, 511, 377, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act and 3/4 Muslim Women Protection Act, Police Station - Mahila Thana, Noida, District - Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶7

As per the allegations in the FIR, marriage of the first informant and the applicant was solemnized as per Muslim rites on 3.11.2019 and the applicant used to commit unnatural offence with the first informant. There are also allegations of attempt to rape on the brother-in-law of the first informant regarding demand of dowry and after being objected to by the first informant, she was also administered triple talaq by the applicant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant, who is the husband of the first informant, is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. The applicant has not given any triple talaq to the first informant. 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. There is no criminal history and, therefore, he is entitled for protection from this Court.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. categorically corroborates the prosecution story alleged in the FIR, although he has not disputed the fact that the investigation is still going on and the charge sheet has not been filed. Learned A.G.A. has also not disputed the fact that there is no criminal history of the

¶10

applicant.

¶11

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant Shahnawaz deserves to be granted anticipatory bail in connection with the aforesaid case.

¶12

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following directions:-

¶13

(A) In the event of arrest of the applicant involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his/her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned;

¶14

(B) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

¶15

(C) 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; and

¶16

(D) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶17

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶18

Order Date :- 31.10.2022 Shalini

¶19

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.11.01 10:15:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shahnawaz v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahnawaz 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

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

Monish Vs State of U.P. and Another