Allowed

Bhupendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2023ABAIL/1910/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Sushila Aggarwal to justify granting anticipatory bail to the applicant facing charges of dowry death. Despite opposition from the prosecution, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail and issued an order allowing him bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to the applicant on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions of compliance and appearance.

Bhupendra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178921

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1910 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Bhupendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Vivek Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri D.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Complaint No. 4584 of 2021 as well as Case Crime No. 233 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Didauli, District Amroha, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the brother-in-law of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant as per Hindu rites on 28.4.2018. The named accused persons are stated to have subjected her to cruelty leading to her death on 19.8.2019.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant, who is the brother-in-law (Nandoi) of the deceased, is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated that although the applicant was named in the FIR, there are anonymous allegations against all the accused persons. The police was pleased to file a closure report in the present case as the deceased was driving on a motorcycle alongwith her husband and they met with an accident and the deceased is stated to have expired ensuing to the said injuries sustained in the said accident. It is also stated that the applicant was granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated 29.3.2023 and he has not misused the said opportunity granted.

¶10

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶12

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Bhupendra involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶15

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

¶16

ii. that 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 officer or tamper with the evidence; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶17

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

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

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court

¶21

concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

Order Date :- 15.9.2023 Shalini

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhupendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendra 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

Mohammad Danish and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Abhay Porwal @ Anshu Vs State of U.P.

Kamal Singh Sirohi Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ved Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. .and Another