Allowed

Sanjeev Kumar Pathak and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2023ABAIL/1253/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by a husband, his brother-in-law, and sister-in-law. The court granted bail till the end of trial in a matrimonial dispute involving offences under 498-A IPC, directing release on personal bond and sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the end of trial; release on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each; conditions imposed regarding presence, inducement, and passport deposit.

Sanjeev Kumar Pathak and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:141717

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1253 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Pathak And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Singh,B.N.Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants - Sanjeev Kumar Pathak, Smt. Anupama Pathak and Smt. Sandhya Pathak in connection with Case Crime No.667 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 420 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. They have been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is a matrimonial dispute. The applicants are jeth, jethani and married nanad of the victim. They have no concern with the present matter. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken into the matter. It is further submitted that the applicants have been cooperative during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant as the offences alleged against the applicant are punishable with the imprisonment upto a maximum period of seven years. In case the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶10

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶11

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶12

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶13

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till end of the trial in the matter.

¶14

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶16

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

¶17

(ii) 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 / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶18

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶19

In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants.

¶20

Order Date :- 13.7.2023

¶21

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjeev Kumar Pathak and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar Pathak and 2 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

Hari Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Fareed @ Fareed Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vandana Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arman Mehandi Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Iqbal Khan Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Prabhawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others