Dismissed¶13

Kalamuddin v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2023ABAIL/12147/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

anticipatory bail; Section 438 Cr.P.C.; conduct of applicant; disinclination to submit to law; bonafide litigant; non-appearance before trial court; Section 482 application; no coercive action order; dismissed for want of prosecution; FIR/Case Crime No. 0193 of 2017; Sections 323, 325, 308, 498A IPC; Dowry Prohibition Act Sections 3/4; dowry demand; charge sheet September 2018; liberty to appear within 15 days; Allahabad High Court; Jyotsna Sharma, J.; order dated 4.1.2023.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the applicant to appear before the court below within 15 days; any bail application moved before the competent court below to be decided as per law. ¶13

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the applicant to appear before the court below within 15 days; any bail application moved before the competent court below to be decided as per law.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Kalamuddin is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0193 of 2017 (Sections 323, 325, 308, 498A IPC; Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act), P.S. Jafarganj, District Fatehpur. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

In view of the facts enumerated in para 4(ii) (non-appearance since the beginning and non-compliance with prior directions), this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail and the application is dismissed.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is not a bonafide litigant and his conduct raises eyebrows.

¶13

Key takeaways

Apart from the merits of the case, gravity of allegations and other relevant facts, a conduct showing disinclination to submit to the laws may be one of the factors which assumes significance while granting the benefit of anticipatory bail.ratio¶13
The applicant is at liberty to appear before the court below within 15 days, and any bail application moved before the competent court below shall be decided as per law.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail under S. 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed. The applicant, a father-in-law aged about 77 years, arraigned in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0193 of 2017, P.S. Jafarganj, District Fatehpur, under Sections 323, 325, 308, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (allegations of dowry demand and harassment by the daughter-in-law/victim); charge-sheeted in September 2018. He had earlier obtained a no-coercive-action order in Application u/s 482 No. 20532 of 2019 (23.05.2019), which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 04.02.2020; a subsequent Application u/s 482 No. 22100 of 2022 gave him one month to appear before the court below and apply for bail, which he did not comply with. Held (Jyotsna Sharma, J.): apart from the merits and gravity of allegations, conduct showing disinclination to submit to the laws is a relevant factor in granting anticipatory bail; the applicant, not being a bonafide litigant, was denied anticipatory bail, with liberty to appear before the court below within 15 days, where his bail application, if moved, shall be decided as per law.

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12147 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kalamuddin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manvendra Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the papers on record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0193 of 2017, under Sections 323, 325, 308 and 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Jafarganj, District Fatehpur.

¶7

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he is the fatherin-law, aged about 77 years and that his daughter-n-law (victim) has falsely implicated him in the present case on the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment on non-fulfillment of that demand.

¶8

The application for bail is being vehemently opposed by the opposite side and following facts have been placed before me in this connection:-

¶9

(i) that matter pertains to an FIR lodged in the year 2017 and the charge sheet was submitted against the applicant under Sections 323, 325, 308 and 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in September 2018.

¶10

(ii) the applicant has not turned up in that case since very beginning instead he has been applying to the High Court for different kinds of remedies. The applicant filed an Application u/s 482 No. 20532 of 2019 in which order for taking no coercive action was passed in favour of the applicant on 23.05.2019, however, the application was ultimately dismissed for want of prosecution on 04.02.2020. The applicant again filed an Application u/s 482 No. 22100 of 2022 in which the applicant was given one month time to appear before the court below and to apply for bail, however, the applicant did not care to comply with the above directions and now he has come

¶11

before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶12

It is argued that the conduct of the applicant dis-entitles him from grant of benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶13

In my view, the applicant is not a bonafide litigant and her conduct certainly raises eyebrows. Apart from merits of the case, gravity of allegation and other relevant facts, a conduct which shows disinclination to submit to laws may be one of the factors which assumes significance while granting benefit of anticipatory bail. In view of facts as enumerated in para 4(ii), I do not find it a fit case to grant this application, hence, the present anticipatory bail is dismissed . However, the applicant shall be at liberty to appear before the court below within 15 days from today and his bail application, if any, moved before the competent court below, shall be decided as per law.

¶14

Order Date :- 4.1.2023 #Vikram/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kalamuddin v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalamuddin v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Julfukar Vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Madan Gopal Gaur Vs State of U.P.

Shehzad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kismtun Vs State of U.P and Another

Sanjai Dixit Vs State of U.P.

Deepu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another