Allowed

Sadan @ Irfan and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2022ABAIL/9948/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by a husband and his relatives accused under sections 498-A and 506 IPC for alleged dowry harassment. Relying on Sushila Aggarwal, the court granted bail on a personal bond with conditions against tampering and intimidation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond with two sureties and conditions regarding interrogation, tampering, and witness intimidation.

Sadan @ Irfan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9948 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sadan @ Irfan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nirbhay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri V.K. Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No. 845 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime no. 26 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act and also under Section 3/4 Protection of Marriage Rights of Marriage of Muslim Women) Act, 2018, Police Station- Delhi Gate, District- Aligarh, with the prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant no. 1- husband, applicant no. 2- mother-in-law and applicant nos. 3 and 4- sister-in-laws of the first informant, are said to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry and are said to have even beaten her up.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize them. There are general allegations in the FIR. No injury has been sustained by the first informant. The allegations pertaining to the rights of Marriage of Muslim Women are even not established. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The charge sheet has been filed. There is no possibility of the applicants influencing the trial or tampering with the evidence. It is further stated that applicants are cooperating in the trial and are ready to cooperate in future also. There is no likelihood of the applicants repeating the said offence, if any. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants 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 fact that applicants have no criminal history.

¶10

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 applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶11

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed . In the event of arrest, let the accusedapplicants Sadan alias Irfan, Sharifan, Nasreen and Samreen 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 with the following conditions:-

¶12

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

¶13

that the applicants 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;

¶14

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

¶15

that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 21.10.2022 Shalini

¶21

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.10.22 13:05:44 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sadan @ Irfan and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadan @ Irfan and 3 Others 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

Lal Bahadur Verma Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul and 5 Others 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

Nilesh @ Kiran Suryawanshi Vs State of U.P. and Another