Allowed

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

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2023ABAIL/554/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by the in-laws of the accused wife. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court held the applicants entitled to bail despite allegations of cruelty and miscarriage due to lack of injury report and delay in FIR. Bail was granted on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and specific conditions regarding

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial on personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, non-condonation, and court attendance.

Ram Bharose Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Dowry and Cruelty | 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. - 554 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Bharose Sharma And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 them on anticipatory bail.

¶8

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

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants are maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and have apprehension of their arrest. They have nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. The applicants are the in-laws of the informant. 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 applicants were granted interim anticipatory bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.03.2023 and they have not misused it. Investigation is going on and they are cooperating with the investigation and are ready to cooperate in future also.

¶10

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 no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed, they 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 applicants and also the fact that the applicants have no criminal history.

¶12

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

¶13

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, Ram Bharose Sharma, Smt. Uma Sharma, Sushil Sharma and Smt. Hema @ Vineeta 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 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;

¶20

vi. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence are 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 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 :- 4.7.2023 Siddhant

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bharose Sharma 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

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

Sudhir Sharma Vs State of U.P.

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