Allowed

Smt. Sangita and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2023ABAIL/1153/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicants sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a dowry death case alleging parity with co-accused already granted bail. The court admitted the undisputed parity and, referring to a top court precedent, allowed the application subject to standard conditions to preserve the trial.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to the applicants subject to personal bond with two sureties each, specific conditions including availability for interrogation, non-tampering with evidence, and appearance i

Smt. Sangita and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1153 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Sangita And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material available on record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No. 191 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sachendi, District Kanpur Nagar, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶7

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants have claimed parity with the co-accused Mahaveer Singh and Smt. Vimlesh, who have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 11307 of 2022 vide order dated 17.11.2022. Since the case of the applicants is at par with the co-accused person, who have already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicants are also entitled for the same on the ground of parity.

¶8

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

¶9

Considering the arguments advanced by the 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 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶10

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed.

¶11

In the event of arrest of the applicants, Smt. Sangita and Rinku Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶12

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

¶13

ii. 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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

iv. that in case, the charge-sheet is submitted, the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

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

¶18

vi. that the applicants 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 anticipatory bail of the applicants.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

Order Date :- 17.4.2023 Siddhant

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Sangita and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sangita and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamsher Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vikas Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neetu Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak and Another Vs State of U.P.

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

Vinay Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another