Allowed

Smt. Ranjana and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2023ABAIL/685/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application moved by three relatives of the accused. The petitioners argued false implication in a matrimonial dispute involving dowry, cruelty, and other offences. The Interim order dated 08.02.2021 was made absolute pending the police report.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail order dated 08.02.2021 made absolute pending submission of police report; no arrest of applicants till next date of listing.

Smt. Ranjana and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 685 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Ranjana And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghubir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vatsala

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

List revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the applicants as well as learned counsel for the informant. Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.5 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 377, 354, 406, 313, 307, 120-B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana Rakabganj, District-Agra, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶7

3. On 08.02.2021, the following order was passed:-

¶8

"Heard Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Raghubir Singh, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mrs. Vatsala, learned counsel for informant.

¶9

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants Smt. Ranjana, Vijay Kumar Saraswat and Dr. Varshit Saraswat, in connection with Case Crime No. 5 of 2020, under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 377, 354, 406, 313, 307, 120-B, 420 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana Rakabganj, District Agra.

¶10

At the very outset, Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior counsel for applicants contend that the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the affidavit. The same is photo copy of statement of prosecutrix as contained in case diary. The same, however, appears to be incomplete. However, there is no deliberate intention on the part of applicants in filing the above. At this juncture, Mr. Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel for informant has produced the certified copy of statement of prosecutrix as recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. Same is taken on record.

¶11

It transpires from record that marriage of Dr. Anjita Sharma, informant was solemnized with Dr. Dev Narain Shukla on 29.04.2018. Subsequently, relationship between couple became strained on account of marital discord.

¶12

Subsequently, the wife Dr. Anjita Sharma lodged an F.I.R. dated 16.1.2020, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0005 of 2020, under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 377, 354, 406, 313, 307, 120-B, 420 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana Rakabganj, District Agra. In the aforesaid F.I.R. it is alleged that incidents have occurred from 29.4.2018 to 14.5.2019 i.e. one year and 15 days. In the above mentioned F.I.R. as many as 11 persons namely Dr. Dev Narain Shukla (husband), Jagat Narain Shukla (father-in-law), Smt. Manju Shukla (mother-in-law), Harsh Shukla (brother-in-law), Brij Ballabh Shukla (grand father-in-law), Dr. Ramesh Chand Shukla (cousin father-in-law/chahia sasur), Dr. Nilam Shukla (cousin mother-in-law/chachia sas), Hani Shukla (cousin sister-in-law/Nanad), Vijay Saraswat (phuphiya sasur), Smt. Ranjana Saraswat (phuphiya sas) and Dr. Vrishit Saraswat (son of phuphiya sas) have been nominated as named accused. In the F.I.R. various allegations with regard to demand of dowry, commission of cruelty upon informant by accused as well as dislodging of her modesty has been alleged. It may be noted here that the wife of Dr. Dev

¶13

Narain Shukla namely, Dr. Anjita Sharma is herself the first informant.

¶14

Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior counsel for applicants contends that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicanted in above mentioned crime number. The dispute between Dr. Dev Narain Shukla, and his wife Dr. Anjita Sharma (informant) is a matrimonial dispute but the same has been given an ugly shape wherein the entire family members and close relatives of husband Dr. Dev Narain Shukla have been falsely implicated. Applicants have no criminal antecedents to their credit except the present one. F.I.R. giving rise to this application for anticipatory bail was lodged on 16.1.2020. Thus, on date a period of more than one year has expired but no police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has been submitted till date. Investigation is still going on. Applicants have cooperated with investigation and therefore, no coercive process has been issued against applicants. Inspite of fact, that a period of more than one year has rolled by Police has not collected any such material up to this stage on the basis of which complicity of present applicant can be said to be established in above mentioned case crime number. As such, custodial arrest of applicants is not absolutely necessary for investigating above mentioned case crime number. However, irrespective of above, there is definite apprehension of their arrest by the Police. On the aforesaid premise, it is urged that liberty of applicants be protected by extending the benefit of anticipatory bail in their favour.

¶15

It is next contended that applicant No. 1 Smt. Ranjana, wife of Vijay Kumar Saraswat is sister of Jagat Narain Shukla, father of Dr. Dev Narain Shukla. Applicant 2 Vijay Kumar Saraswat is husband of applicant 1, as such he is brother-in-law of father of Dr. Dev Narain Shukla and applicant No. 3 Dr. Varshit Saraswat is the son of applicant Nos. 1 and 2, who is doctor by profession. They are relatives and have no concern with the family life of Dr. Dev Narain Shukla and his wife Dr. Anjita Sharma. But have been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number.

¶16

It is next contended that applicant-1 smt. Ranjana is a lady aged about 69 years, therefore by virtue of Section 437 Cr. P. C., applicant 1 is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶17

In respect of applicant-2, Vijay Kumar Saraswat, it is contended that applicant- 2 is practising as an Advocate at Jaipur. He is settled at Jaipur along with his family and he is aged more than 70 years of age. Applicant No. 2 has no interest in the matrimonial life of informant and her husband Dr. Dev Narain Shukla, but as a part of pressure tactics entire family and relatives of Dr. Dev Narain Shukla including present applicants have been falsely implicated. Elaborating this contention, he further submits that date of occurrence regarding dislodging the modesty of informant by applicant No. 2 has not been specifically mentioned in the body of the F.I.R. However, prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. has improved upon the prosecution case as unfolded in the F.I.R. and for the first time in her statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C., it is alleged that modesty of prosecutrix has been dislodged by applicant2 on 14.4.2019. There is delay in lodging the F.I.R. which has not been explained. Furthermore, prosecutrix has not been consistent. It is thus contended that prosecution has not come forward with basic prosecution case in the F.I.R, which creates doubt with regard to the allegations made in the F.I.R. in respect of applicant-2.

¶18

It is lastly submitted that applicant -3 Dr. Vrashit Sarswat is working as a doctor and no specific allegation has been made against applicant- 3 in the F.I.R. All the family members of husband, Dr. Dev Narain Shukla as well as his relatives have been falsely implicated.

¶19

On the cumulative strength of aforesaid submissions, it is urged by learned Senior Counsel for applicants that liberty of applicants is liable to be protected by this Court.

¶20

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as Mr. Vinay Saran, learned Senior counsel appearing for first informant assisted by Mrs. Vatsala, learned counsel for informant has vehemently opposed this application for anticipatory bail. Mr. Vinay Saran, learned Senior counsel appearing for first informant in opposition to the present application for anticipatory bail contends that prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. has clearly implicated applicant No. 2 for the alleged criminality regarding dislodging of her modesty. No illegality has been committed by Court below in rejecting the anticipatory bail application filed by applicants. As such, present application for anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected.

¶21

Having heard Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Vinay Saran, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Vatasala, learned counsel for first informant opposite party No. 2, upon perusal of material on record and complicity of accused, applicants have made out a case.

¶22

Matter requires consideration.

¶23

Notice on behalf of opposite party No. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A. Mrs. Vatsala has put in appearance on behalf of first informant. They pray for and are granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit. Applicants will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶24

List for final disposal after expiry of aforesaid period before appropriate Bench.

¶25

Till the next date of listing, applicants shall not be arrested in above mentioned case crime number but they shall co-operate with the investigation."

¶26

On the basis of instructions learned A.G.A. submits that dispute is matrimonial in nature wherein entire family of the husband has been roped with false and frivolous allegations. He further submits that till date no charge sheet has been submitted and investigation is still going on. He further submits that applicant has always co-operated in the investigation and has not misused the liberty of aforesaid interim anticipatory bail, which was granted to them on 08.02.2021.

¶27

In view of the above, aforesaid interim anticipatory bail order dated 08.02.2021 is made absolute till submission of police report under Section 173(3) Cr.P.C. on the terms and conditions as indicated in the above order dated 08.02.2021.

¶28

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶29

Order Date :- 19.1.2023 Rahul.

¶30

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Ranjana and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ranjana 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Singh and 16 Others Vs State of U.P.

Tahsin Begum and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Kumar Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Shivkant Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km. Rehana @ Riya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Lata and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.