Allowed

Kuldeep v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2023ABAIL/13087/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant in a dowry cruelty case. The applicant alleged false implication and stated that the husband and wife had parted ways and filed for divorce. The Court, relying on Sushila Aggarwal, granted bail till conclusion of trial subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial subject to conditions including availability for interrogation and non-interference with evidence.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163135

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13087 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Kuldeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pragati,Archana Jha,Shaili Ganguly Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Smt. Shaili Ganguly, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.94 of 2017, registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 307 IPC at Police Station- Mahila Thana, District Meerut with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, on 01.03.2009, the brother-in-law of the applicant Dinesh is stated to have married the informant as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry and are stated to have polluted the minds of several other family members and are stated to have assaulted her on 19.10.2017 at about 10:00 a.m., thereby causing grievous injuries to her.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the brother-in-law (Nandoi) of the informant and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The matter has been settled once for all as the husband wife have decided to part ways and have filed a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant lives separately to the informant and has nothing to do with the said offence. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-

¶11

operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is 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 applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶14

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Kuldeep be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

(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;

¶17

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

¶18

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 11.8.2023 Ravi Kant

¶24

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kuldeep v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Ankur Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ratan Manglani Vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Singh @ Bade Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jwala Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Istekhar @ Kala Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others