Allowed

Krishn Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2023ABAIL/11580/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court grants anticipatory bail to Krishn Kumar Gupta, accused in a dowry harassment and assault case filed under sections 498A, 323, 504, 307 IPC and DP Act. Bail granted subject to bonding and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to personal bond with two sureties and conditions regarding interrogation, non-tampering, travel restrictions, and appearance in court.

Krishn Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11580 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Krishn Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vidit Narayan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aditya Kant Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

01.Heard Sri Vidit Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Aditya Kant Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State perused the papers on record.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Krishn Kumar Gupta , seeking anticipatory bail in case crime no. 346 of 2022 under section 498A, 323, 504, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Madhuban Bapudham, District- Ghaziabad.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant who happens to be father-in-law of the victim Anchal; who was admittedly married to son of the present applicant in 2018; was being harassed by the applicant and other members of his family for the purpose of bringing Rs. 1 Crore as dowry. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that dispute between the two was resolved by intervention of some members of the society. On 06.08.2022, when the victim Anchal visited her in-laws with others to collect her academic papers she was attacked by her husband Ashish and Jeth-Vinay and she sustained injuries.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the domestic dispute has been blown out of proportion and the present applicant has been en-roped just because he happens to be father-in-law and that he never tortured his daughter-in-law; a divorce proceeding is going on between his son and daughter-in-law since 2021 and to put pressure on him, this F.I.R. has been lodged.

¶9

The anticipatory bail application is opposed on behalf of the opposite side and it is contended that the applicant has a history of three criminal cases behind him and that he has been complicit in whole of the episode and therefore, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. This position is not disputed that Smt. Geeta Gupta (mother-in-law) and Sweta Gupta (Nanad) and Priyanka Gupta (Jethani) of the victim who too were named in the F.I.R. with similar allegation, have been granted interim protection in Misc. application No. 11579 of 2022 by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.11.2022 as their case was found different from that of Ashish her husband and Vinay her Jeth.

¶10

I considered the nature of accusations, the attending facts and circumstances, the differences in allegations against the present applicant when compared to the allegations as imputed against Ashish and Vinay it has been contended that he is being victimized only because he happens to be father-in-law. In my view a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶11

Let the applicant, Krishn Kumar Gupta involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a

¶12

personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions as below:-

¶13

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

¶14

(ii) 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

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

¶16

(iv) that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶18

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, and in case the trial court is of the view that any attempt is being made to delay in trial the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶20

09. It is made clear that observations made herein shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.1.2023

¶22

Gaurav

¶23

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishn Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishn Kumar Gupta 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

Sona Alias Vinay Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prem Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Salim and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ehasan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mitthan Vs State of U.P. and Another