Partly allowed

Smt. Kajal @ Mansi and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2023ABAIL/1436/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed anticipatory bail for applicant no.1, Smt. Kajal, in an investigation for abetment to suicide, subject to a personal bond and conditions regarding cooperation and travel. The application of applicant no.2, Vansh, was rejected as his name appeared in the suicide note.

What did the court decide?

Session Court anticipatory bail allowed for applicant no.1; personal bond of Rs. ₹50,000 with two sureties imposed; application of applicant no.2 rejected.

Smt. Kajal @ Mansi and Another Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1436 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Kajal @ Mansi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anupam Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Anupam Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application is being moved by the applicants- Smt. Kajal @ Mansi (applicant no.1) and Vansh (applicant no.2) that they have every reason to believe that they may be arrested in connection with Case Crime no.414 of 2022, under Sections 306, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Dankaur, District-Gautam Budhh Nagar.

¶7

From the record, it is evident that the applicants have approached this Court after getting their anticipatory bail rejected from the court of sessions vide order dated 19.01.2023.

¶8

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶9

As per FIR lodged against as many as five named accused

¶10

including the applicants, the marriage of informant and his brother was solemnized on 11.12.2020 with applicant no.1 and her sister. The informant's wife Kajal and his brother's wife Anchal were harassing family members of the informant. Details regarding which have been given in the FIR. It has also been alleged that Anchal, wife of informant's brother had illicit relationship with some person for which informant's brother objected. Whenever informant's brother tried to persuade his wife Anchal and also objected to the illicit relationship of her with some person, the named accused persons including the applicants threatened to kill him and also implicate him in some false case. The suicide note mentioning the aforesaid has also been placed along with the FIR. As the deceased (informant's brother) was being harassed by the named accused persons including the applicants, therefore, he committed suicide on 11.12.2022 at about 2 PM for which the present FIR was lodged.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. There is no evidence to show that applicants have abetted the deceased to commit suicide though in the suicide note name of applicant no.2 Vansh brother-in-law of the deceased has been shown. There is nothing in the suicide note against applicant no.1 Smt. Kajal. Learned counsel for the applicants has strenuously advanced a number of arguments demonstrating falsity of accusation levelled by the informant in first information report to besmirch reputation of the applicants and belittle them in the public estimate. He contended that the applicants have no criminal antecedents to their credit and never undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable

¶12

offence previously. An assurance was also advanced on behalf of the applicants that they would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigating agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee away from the course of justice.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant submits that in the FIR itself details regarding harassment of the deceased, who happens to be brother-in-law of applicant no.1 and 2, have been mentioned. In the suicide note though the name of applicant no.1 does not find place but narration of the version regarding harassment by all family members of the applicants has been given in the FIR, therefore, it can be believed that excluding name of applicant no.1 in the suicide note cannot go to prove that the deceased has not been abetted by applicant no.1 to commit suicide. They further submits that offence is serious in nature involving Section 306 I.P.C. They further submits that though the applicants have got no criminal antecedents but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicants to arrest them. They further submits that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the applicants are not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.

¶14

After the close scrutiny of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and its relevant clauses, the Court is satisfied that the applicant no.1 Smt. Kajal @ Mansi has made out a case for anticipatory bail in connection with aforesaid case crime pending investigation.

¶15

Accordingly, insofar as applicant no.1 Smt. Kajal @ Mansi is concerned, the anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶16

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case

¶17

either ways which may be adversely affect the investigation and subsequent stage of the case, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicant no.1 Smt. Kajal @ Mansi in aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer till the submission of report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer , with the conditions that :

¶18

(i) the applicant no.1 shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶19

(ii) the applicant no.1 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office;

¶20

(iii) the applicant no.1 shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶21

(iv) The Investigating Officer of the case would make all necessary endeavour to gear up the investigation in utmost transparent way and would try to conclude it expeditiously.

¶22

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law, independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.

¶23

In the event, the applicant no.1 breaches or attempts to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or wilfully violate above conditions or

¶24

abstains herself from the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the court of Session for cancellation of anticipatory bail and the Court of Session has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.

¶25

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as material available on record and with the observations that name of applicant no.2 Vansh has been shown in the suicide note, this Court is of the view that applicant no.2 Vansh has not made out a case for anticipatory bail therefore, the anticipatory bail application in respect of applicant no.2 Vansh stands rejected.

¶26

Order Date :- 8.2.2023 Rahul.

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Kajal @ Mansi and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kajal @ Mansi and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

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

Ram Karan Vs State of U.P.

Waseem @ Chania Pahalwan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amardeep Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Harun Rana Alias Rao Haraun and Another Vs State of U.P.