Allowed

Bablu @ Anil Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2023ABAIL/1666/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving matrimonial disputes and dowry charges. The applicant was not named in the FIR but surfaced during co-accused statements. The court imposed strict conditions ensuring cooperation and directed that the investigation be concluded without prejudice to the bail order before the next date.

What did the court decide?

Released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each till the submission of police report.

Bablu @ Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1666 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Bablu @ Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ali Murtaza Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Syed Ali Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A and perused the record.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Bablu @ Anil Kumar, seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 140 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 354Ka, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station -Cantt., District - Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the court of sessions vide order dated 23.11.2022.

¶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 Act) is not required.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR has been lodged by the victim herself against the husband as well as his family members due to matrimonial dispute between the parties.

¶10

He further submits that the applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He further submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name surfaced in the statement of co-accused persons. He further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case being cousin of the husband of the informant as he was doing paravi on behalf of the husband in a case lodged by the

¶11

husband under Section 9 of Restitution of Conjugal Rights. He further submits that the applicant is a Government Servant and has no criminal history. An assurance was also advanced on behalf of the applicant that he 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.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicant has got no criminal antecedents but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicant to arrest him. He further submits that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the applicant is not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.

¶13

After the close scrutiny of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and its relevant clauses, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out the case for anticipatory bail in connection with aforesaid case crime pending investigation.

¶14

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case 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 in aforesaid case crime, he 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 police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer , with the folconditions that :

¶15

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

¶16

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office;

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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 the same before the next date fixed.

¶19

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

¶20

In the event, the applicant breach or attempt to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or wilfully violate above conditions or abstains himself 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 interim protection and the Court of Session has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.

¶21

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application U/s Section 438 Cr.P.C. is disposed off.

¶22

Order Date :- 14.2.2023 Jitendra/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bablu @ Anil Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu @ Anil Kumar 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

Shiv Shankar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naseer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harendra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Abrar Khan Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Urf Pintu Nishad and Another Vs State of U.P.

Hero Urf Sanjeev Vs State of U.P. and Another