Allowed

Qamar Alam v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2023ABAIL/4746/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in proceedings under sections 498-A and 323 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the applicant was ordered released when furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to standard bail conditions regarding appearance and evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released forthwith on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions.

Qamar Alam Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:140002

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4746 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Qamar Alam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Crime No.550 of 2022, registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, 3/4 of D.P. Act and 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act at Police Station- Chandpur, District Bijnor with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the informant as per Muslim Rites on 19.08.2020. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of a car and Rs.50,000/- as dowry. On 17.08.2022 at about 1:00 PM, the applicant and other family members are stated to have assaulted her causing injuries to her.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. This is no injury case. The allegations are per se false. The final report (charge-sheet) has been filed against the applicant. The applicant has complied with the provisions of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director AIR 2021 SC 4154 , wherein the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be

¶11

released on bail.

¶12

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. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

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

¶15

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Qamar Alam be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶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 the previous permission of the court;

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 14.7.2023 Ravi Kant

¶26

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

Qamar Alam v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Qamar Alam 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

Rinku Yadav @ Praveen Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Agnihotri Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jishan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajpal Saini and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ratnesh Mohan Singh and 2 Other Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P.