Allowed

Tarun Bishnoi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2023ABAIL/13269/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matrimonial dispute involving allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment, the High Court considered an anticipatory bail application. Assessing the nature of accusations and the applicant's role, the court granted bail pending the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Bail was subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and standard conditions regarding interference with witn

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted pending filing of police report under S. 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and complying with specified conditions.

Tarun Bishnoi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165760

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13269 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Tarun Bishnoi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saumitra Dwivedi,Yatharth Nath Pathak

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shivajee Singh Sisodiya

¶6

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Tarun Bishnoi seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 467 of 2022, under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 313 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Nawabganj, DistrictBareilly.

¶9

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that no any demand of dowry or harassment was made by the present applicant. There is nothing on record to show the complicity of the applicant in commission of offence. The allegation that the present applicant administered medicine for termination of pregnancy is totally false and is not based on any evidence. It is further submitted that present is a case of matrimonial dispute and only on account of being husband of the victim the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that co-accused Prachi Bishnoi and Medhavi Vishnoi have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13100 of 2022 by order dated 5.4.2023. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that before lodging of the present FIR an FIR was also lodged by the applicant himself against the informant and her family members wherein the investigation is going on. It is further submitted that the present applicant being the husband

¶11

of the victim has all legal responsibility to take care of his own wife.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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, llikelihood 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

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶14

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant 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 applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶15

8. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶20

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant.

¶21

Order Date :- 17.8.2023 Fhd

¶22

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tarun Bishnoi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Bishnoi 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

Mohd. Shafique Khan @ Aadil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shoaib Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaspal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jakir @ Chhabbis Vs State of U.P.

Babu Ram and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another