Allowed

Motilal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2023ABAIL/6960/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C regarding a case involving Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, the Hon'ble Court, considering the absence of a specific role assigned to the applicant and the preliminary facts, granted bail pending the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each, subject to conditions regarding interrogation, inducement, and travel.

Motilal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:130860

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6960 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Motilal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prathamesh Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Motilal seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.156 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC, P.S. Phase-3 NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that the applicant lives separately and he does not live with the deceased and her husband, as is evident from the address mentioned in his Aadhar Card. It is also submitted that there is no suicide note made by the deceased. It is further submitted that in the post mortem report cause of death of the deceased has been found as asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. It is also submitted that except ligature mark, only a contusion has been found on the body of the deceased which may be caused while taking the deceased down. It is further submitted that in the F.I.R. and even during investigation no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant and there is no mentioning of any specific date, occasion or time in the entire F.I.R. as to when the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment. The death of the deceased has been occurred after seven years of her marriage. The investigation of the case is going-on and chargesheet has not been filed. Criminal history of one case has been properly explained. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that it is a case of suicide committed by a married lady in her matrimonial house. Applicant resides with the husband of the deceased and the deceased herself. It is also submitted that during course of investigation evidence is being collected against the present applicant but he fairly admits that no specific date, occasion or time of the series of the acts of cruelty and harassment has been mentioned in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the informant herself, who is the mother of the deceased.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws and she used to tell the incident to her family members. Being perturbed and depressed with the cruel behaviour of the in-laws, she committed suicide by hanging. Present applicant is the brother-in-law (Devar) of the deceased. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started which is still going on.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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, likelihood 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.

¶13

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason

¶14

to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶15

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court.

¶16

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶19

(ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶21

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶22

Order Date :- 4.7.2023

¶23

safi

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Motilal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Motilal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Nand Kishor Nayak Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bobby Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Narayan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Malkhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another