Allowed

Mohd. Nabab Khan Pathan and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2023ABAIL/3071/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by family members in dowry death proceedings. Held that applicants are entitled to bail without expressing opinion on ultimate merits, subject to standard conditions including appearance and non-tampering.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on personal bond with two sureties and conditions of appearance and non-tampering.

Mohd. Nabab Khan Pathan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3071 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Nabab Khan Pathan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar,Rupesh Kumar Ram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Bahadur Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Nitin Kesarwani, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 85 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 304-B IPC and 3/4, 6 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with Mohammad Irshad Khan as per Muslim rites about six years before her death. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry leading to her death on 21.9.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3, who are father-in-law, brother-in-law (Jeth) and sister-in-law (Jethani) of the deceased person respectively, are maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and have the apprehension of their arrest. The applicants have nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution.

¶9

Learned counsel has further stated that the deceased was suffering from Acute Pancreatitis Perforation, as such, she has expired due to the said ailment. Learned counsel has next stated that the father of the deceased person did not continue with the treatment as he had taken away his daughter from the hospital against medical advice. Learned counsel has also stated that the cause of death was the said ailment and not any cruelty or any assault being committed to her. Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR has even been instituted by filing an application under

¶10

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶11

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. It is further submitted that the applicants have cooperated in the investigation. They have not misused the liberty granted to them. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed, they will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶12

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 applicants.

¶13

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 applicants are 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 applicants is allowed.

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicants, Mohd. Nabab Khan Pathan, Mahmood alias Ismail and Smt. Nazira 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 applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶18

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

¶19

iv. that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence are exempted;

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the

¶21

applicants.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants 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 :- 21.4.2023 Shalini

¶25

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

Mohd. Nabab Khan Pathan and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Nabab Khan Pathan and 2 Others 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

Deepak Pachauri Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Chandra Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Salman and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sumant @ Sumant Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Alok Kumar Vs State of U.P.