Allowed

Om Prakash Trivedi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2023ABAIL/10182/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This transferable case involved an anticipatory bail application before the Allahabad High Court for four applicants facing allegations under Sections 498-A and 420 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act in Rajasthan. The court granted interim transit anticipatory bail for a fixed period of three days to enable the applicants to approach the competent court in Rajasthan.

What did the court decide?

Grant of transit anticipatory bail for a period of three weeks upon execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of the like amount.

Om Prakash Trivedi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:192167

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10182 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Om Prakash Trivedi And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinayak Mithal,Pranshu Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking transit anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 153 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 406, 313, 384, 420 IPC and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East), District Jaipur City (East), with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶8

In short as per prosecution story, marriage of informant with the applicant no. 3, namely, Ankit Trivedi was solemnized on 28.11.2021 as per Hindu rites and rituals through Jevansathi.com website and in the marriage sufficient amount of dowry is said to have been given by the parents of the informant/victim. It is alleged that after the marriage the in-laws of the informant as well as her husband were not happy and she has been continuously mentally and physically harassed by her in-laws and other family members. It is also alleged that the informant during the passage of time was pregnant but her husband wanted her to get it aborted on several occasions on one pretext or other. It is alleged that on 31.01.2022 on account of severe pain, informant is said to have visited the doctor and on medical check-up/ultrasound it is revealed that the foetus has no heart beat and ten days prior to medical examination, the foetus is said to have died in the womb, thereafter, she took steps for abortion. Apart from these, several other allegations relating to cruelty, ill-treatments and misappropriation of stridhan are mentioned in the FIR.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicants submitted that the applicant nos. 1 & 2 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim and are presently residing at Kanpur, applicant no. 3 is the husband of the

¶10

victim, who is presently residing at USA on account of his job and applicant no. 4, is the maternal uncle of the husband and is residing at Kanpur. It is stated that the applicants are directly approaching this Court because of the fact that the FIR has been lodged at P.S. Mansarovar, Jaipur City (South) in the State of Rajasthan and they are apprehending their arrest in the case registered in Jainpur (Rajasthan), whereas there is no evidence against them and that no prima facie case is made out against applicants.

¶11

It is contended that the genesis of the present case is a matrimonial dispute and when the relations between the husband and wife turned bitter, the applicant/husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar on 22.5.2023, which is still pending, thereafter, in retaliation to the same present false FIR has been lodged on a totally false and concocted story implicating all the family members and distant relative with intention to exert pressure upon the applicants to appear in the court at Jaipur only to harass the applicants. It is further submitted that since the FIR has been lodged at Jaipur City, and the investigation is going on at Jaipur City, and applicants are ready to participate in such investigation at Jaipur City (East) and are willing to appear before the court concerned at Jaipur (Rajasthan) for the purpose of getting anticipatory bail/regular bail but apprehending their arrest hence, they are seeking transit anticipatory bail by means of the present application for short time so that they may appear before the competent court at Jaipur under limited protection granted by this court by way of time bound transit anticipatory bail. Referring to the version of FIR and facts of the matter it is submitted that no case is made out. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case of Teesta Atul Setalvad & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (vide Anticipatory Bail Application No. 14 0f 2014, decided on January 31, 2014), wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that the High Court of one State can grant transit bail in respect of a case registered within the jurisdiction of another High Court in exercise of power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It appears from the said judgment that there is no fetter on the part of the High Court in exercising the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in granting anticipatory bail for a limited period to enable the applicants to move the appropriate Court as the gravity of pre-trial arrest and the loss of liberty of the individual cannot be compromised on the anvil of the powers, competence and/or jurisdiction of the Court. The aforesaid

¶12

judgment of the Bombay High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition No. 1770 of 2014. The Apex Court declined to interfere with the said order by making the following observations :-

¶13

"The matter relates to grant of Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Bombay High Court vide impugned order dated 31st January, 2014 allowed the petitioners to move before appropriate Court in Gujarat for said relief and granted Transit Bail for four weeks so as to enable the petitioner to approach before the appropriate Court at Gujarat. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶14

However, taking into consideration the nature of the case and submission made on behalf of the petitioners, we extend the Transit Bail in favour of petitioners upto 31st March, 2014 so as to enable the petitioners to approach the appropriate Court in Gujarat. If such petition is filed, the appropriate Court in Gujarat will consider the same independently without being influenced by any observation made by the Bombay High Court.

¶15

The question of law about jurisdiction of High Court is kept open. The special leave petition stands disposed of."

¶16

Learned counsel has referred a number of cases and submitted that that there is no fetter on the part of the High Court in exercising the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in granting anticipatory bail for a limited period to enable the applicant to move the appropriate Court. He has also relied upon the case of Amita Garg and 6 others Vs State of UP and 3 others (Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No-5286 of 2022), decided on 06.07.2022 by the co-ordinate Bench of this court wherein this court also granted transit anticipatory bail to the applicants therein.

¶17

Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant any protection to the applicants. The offence has taken place outside the state of U.P. and thus the applicants may appear before the court concerned and apply for bail / anticipatory bail and the present application is not maintainable before this Court. However, learned AGA could not dispute the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants wherein transit anticipatory bail for fixed period by coordinate Bench of this Court has been allowed.

¶18

Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, legal position discussed above but without prejudice to the merits of the case, the applicants deserve interim protection by way of transit anticipatory bail for fixed period.

¶19

In view of aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on merits, it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicants, namely, Om Prakash Trivedi, Shashi Prabha Trivedi @ Shashi Trivedi, Ankit Trivedi and Pramod Tiwari, in connection with Case Crime No.Case Crime No. 153 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 406, 313, 384, 420 IPC and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East), District Jaipur City (East), be released on transit (anticipatory) bail on executing personal Bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting officer concerned. This protection is granted for a period of three weeks only from today to enable the applicants to approach the competent court for seeking appropriate relief in accordance with law. In case, applicants fail to appear within the time stipulated, no further time would be extended and the interim protection shall stand automatically vacated.

¶20

Present Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶21

Order Date :- 5.10.2023 RavindraKSingh

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Om Prakash Trivedi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Trivedi and 3 Others 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

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Saroj Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Vyash Kanhiya Chanchal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajkishor Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Gupta @ Sachin Goyal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rakeeb Khan @ Arju Vs State of U.P. and Another