Allowed

Sudhir Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2023ABAIL/2201/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the accused faced charges of dowry harassment, cruelty, and assault linked to a miscarriage. The court applied the Sushila Aggarwal principle and allowed the bail, subject to conditions regarding cooperation, appearance, and non-tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed till conclusion of trial on personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions of availability for interrogation, no tampering, and appearance in court.

Sudhir Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:132347

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2201 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sudhir Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Bipin Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, 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 F.I.R./Case Crime No. 283 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 313 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Prem Nagar, District Jhansi, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the informant on 09.02.2002 and out of their wedlock, two children were born. The applicant and his family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of dowry. It is also alleged that the applicant and his family members are stated to have assaulted her thereby leading to her miscarriage.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has apprehension of his arrest. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that the FIR is delayed by one month and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no injury report to substantiate the prosecution story. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.03.2023 and he has not misused it. Investigation is going on and he is cooperating with the investigation and is ready to cooperate in future also.

¶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

Considering 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

¶13

" Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶14

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 .

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Sudhir Sharma 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

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;

¶18

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶19

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

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

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court 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 :- 4.7.2023 Siddhant

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sudhir Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Sharma 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

Deo Raj Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Safeen Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gopal@ Abhay Pratap Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivlal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Bharose Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nayab Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another