Allowed

Ravi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2023ABAIL/13745/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Ravi in a matrimonial dispute under Dowry Prohibition Act and IPC sections regarding cruelty. The court noted the applicant was cooperative and at large, allowing bail until the trial concludes against specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the end of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each and complying with conditions against inducement, fleeing, or leaving India.

Ravi Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:235066

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13745 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ravi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Dubey,Chandra Bhan Dubey

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Ravi seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 222 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Baghpat.

¶8

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

¶9

It is submitted 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. The applicant is husband of the victim. It is a matrimonial dispute. Injuries sustained by the victim are simple in nature. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. Neither any demand of additional dowry was made by the applicant nor the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment for the same. No process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC has been issued against the applicant and the applicant has not been declared absconder. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

From the perusal of the record it reveals that it is a case of matrimonial dispute. It also reveals that after investigation charge sheet has been submitted in the matter and the applicant has been

¶13

cooperative during investigation and now after submission of charge sheet no custodial interrogation is required.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :

¶18

"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87CrPC that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

¶19

Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170CrPC, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an

¶20

accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

¶21

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial.

¶22

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶23

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 the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶24

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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.

¶27

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

¶28

Order Date :- 12.12.2023

¶29

safi

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi v. State of U.P.

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

Deepak @ Avinash Vs State of U.P.

Prashant Ojha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maan Singh@ Karan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Asagar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranjana Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Palla and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.