Allowed

Vikas Pandey and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2023ABAIL/1796/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to three applicants in a dowry harassment投诉 case. The court relied on Sushila Aggarwal guidelines, imposing standard conditions including appearance in court and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to Vikas Pandey, Prabhakar Pandey and Smt. Pushpa Pandey on furnishing personal bond and 2 sureties each.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1796 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Vikas Pandey And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri V.K. Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Complaint Case No.5114 of 2017, registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station- Kotwali, District Pilibhit with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the marriage of applicant no.1 was solemnized with the complainant as per Hindu Rites on 14.02.2013 and the applicants and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.30 lakhs and a Innova Car.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that a complaint case was filed by the informant on 31.08.2017 and cognizance has been taken against the applicants on 02.06.2018. The applicants have challenged the said cognizance order by filing a petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C., which is still pending. There are general allegations against the applicants. The cognizance has not been taken against Mamta Pandey. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the said fact that the cognizance has not been taken against Mamta Pandey.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(ii). that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 13.4.2023 Ravi Kant

¶23

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

Vikas Pandey and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Pandey and 2 Others 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

Ranjeet Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gaigy Begam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Reeta Devi Vs State of U.P.

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

Neetu Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prabha Chauhan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Othres