Allowed

Prashant and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2023ABAIL/3397/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to four applicants facing charges including 498-A IPC in a matrimonial dispute. Bail was granted till the end of trial subject to conditions including appearing in court, not inducing witnesses, and not leaving the country.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the end of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each.

Prashant and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3397 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Prashant And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudeep Singh,Vikas Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants - Prashant, Ramendra Sharma, Smt. Usha Sharma @ Dhoopkali and Shivangi Sharma @ Shilpi in connection with Case Crime No.05 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 354 Kha IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have no concern with the present matter. They have not committed any offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter. If the applicants are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate with the investigation. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest by the police any time.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.

¶9

It appears from the perusal of the record that general allegations of cruelty and harassment caused by all the applicants to the victim / wife of applicant no.1 have been alleged in the F.I.R. and a specific allegation has been made against the applicant no.2 Ramendra Sharma, who is said to be the father-in-law of the victim, for outraging the modesty of the victim and also in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has corroborated the prosecution version and nothing specific has been stated by her against the applicants. Investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed against all the accusedapplicants. Applicants have no criminal antecedents. During the course of investigation, they have been cooperative with the

¶10

investigating officer. No injury report of the victim is available on record.

¶11

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶12

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶13

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶14

In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that it seems to be a matrimonial dispute as well as considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till end of the trial in the matter.

¶15

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till the end of the trial on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶17

(i) The applicants shall make himself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

¶18

(ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make any

¶19

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶20

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶21

In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants.

¶22

Order Date :- 12.4.2023 ss

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prashant and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant and 3 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

Deepak Rawat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Guddu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Bharadwaj Vs State of U.P.

Shyambir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sant Prakash Goel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Chahar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another