Allowed

Kailash Narayan Tiwari and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Mohan Swaroop

Allahabad HC5 May 2023ABAIL/12792/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to three applicants charged under dowry and cruelty sections. The judgment referred to the Supreme Court decision in Sushila Aggarwal upholding the grant despite non-cooperation during mediation, subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each with conditions.

Kailash Narayan Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12792 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kailash Narayan Tiwari And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Mohan Swaroop Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Shukla,Praveen Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shri Prakash Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Rohit Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shri Prakash Dwivedi and Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.48 of 2021, registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 406 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the marriage of son of the applicant no.1 was solemnized with the informant as per Hindu rites on 30.11.2019. The applicants and other family members are said to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry of Rs.60 lakhs, thereby are stated to have beaten her up and the FIR has been instituted against all the members of the family on 17.3.2021.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant no.1 is father-in-law, applicant no.2 is mother-in-law and applicant no.3 is the sister-in-law (Jethani) of the informant and they are entitled for anticipatory bail as no injury has been sustained by the informant herein. Even the date and time of offence has not been mentioned in the FIR. The applicants have no criminal history to their credit. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the applicants had not cooperated during mediation and refused to take away the informant with them, as such they are not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶11

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶12

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Kailash Narayan Tiwari , Pratibha Tiwari and Aastha Shukla @ Namita Tiwari be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

(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 dissuade them 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 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

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶21

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶22

Order Date :- 5.5.2023 Vikas

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kailash Narayan Tiwari and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Mohan Swaroop

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Narayan Tiwari and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Mohan Swaroop

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

Nathani Alias Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Mukeem and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Sriram Vs State of U.P.

Madan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Bhanu Prakash Vishnoi Vs State of U.P.