Allowed

Jwala Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2023ABAIL/5459/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the court allowed bail for two applicants accused of assaulting and outraging the modesty of the complainant, relying on Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Awaited release on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each with several conditions regarding interrogation, tampering, and appearance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163689

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5459 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Jwala Prasad And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Bahadur Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, 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 applicants in Complaint Case No.43591 of 2021, registered under Sections 323, 354, 452, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station- Sarnath, District Varanasi with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicants alongwith other family members are stated to have outraged the modesty of the complainant and assaulted her on 28.11.2021 at about 09:30 p.m. as they had barged into her house.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the compliant case has been filed after a much delay of about six days. The applicants are stated to have assaulted the husband of the complainant. The injuries sustained are simple in nature. The applicants are real brothers and there is no possibility of committing the said crime. The applicants have no criminal history to their credit. Learned counsel has further stated that there is strong alibi of the applicants as they were doing job at Danapur, Chandauli. 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. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶11

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 applicants.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 11.8.2023 Vikas

¶23

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jwala Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jwala Prasad and Another 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

Ankur Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ratan Manglani Vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Singh @ Bade Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Surendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Istekhar @ Kala Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others