Kismtun Vs State of U.P and Another

Court No. - 85

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12690 of 2022

Applicant :- Kismtun 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 she is the mother-in-law, aged about 72 years and that her daughter-n-law (victim) has falsely implicated her in the present case on the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment on nonfulfillment 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 she 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 she has come

¶11

before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶12

It is argued that the conduct of the applicant dis-entitles her 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 her 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

Kismtun v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kismtun 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

Kalamuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjai Dixit Vs State of U.P.

Deepu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another